Citation
Familial, Individual, Social-Cognitive, and Contextural Predictors of Career Decision Self-Efficacy: An Ecological Perspective

Material Information

Title:
Familial, Individual, Social-Cognitive, and Contextural Predictors of Career Decision Self-Efficacy: An Ecological Perspective
Creator:
RIBADENEIRA, ALEXANDRA M.
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic achievement ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Conscientiousness ( jstor )
Ecology ( jstor )
Ethnicity ( jstor )
Fathering ( jstor )
Modeling ( jstor )
Mothering ( jstor )
Parenting ( jstor )
Self esteem ( jstor )
City of Gainesville ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Alexandra M. Ribadeneira. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
12/31/2007
Resource Identifier:
649815593 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

FAMILIAL, INDIVIDUAL, SOCIAL -COGNITIVE, AND CONTEXTUAL PREDICTORS OF CAREER DECISION SELF-EFFICACY: AN ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE By ALEXANDRA M. RIBADENEIRA A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Alexandra M. Ribadeneira

PAGE 3

To my father

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank Dr. Patricia Ashton, the most generous, caring, and wise dissertation chair a doctoral student can ever hope for. This project was possible primarily because of her patient guidance and intellectual stimulation, her gift for interpersonal communication, and her belief in my ability to complete this work. There really are not enough words to thank her. I also want to thank my doctoral committee members, Dr. James Algina, Dr. Tracy Linde rholm, and Dr. Julia Graber, for their challenging questions and for the time and kindness offered throughout this process. I am most thankful to Elaine Rodrigu ez, Susan Davis, Deirdre Shearer, Nicole Nasewicz, Allison Dempsey, Tiffany Sanders, Clay Austin, Katherine Matzen, Maria Arzola, David Therriault, Susana Braylan, Dania Abreu, Clara Sotello, and John Dobson, who generously allowed me to recruit particip ants from their undergraduate courses at the University of Florida. I also want to th ank Elaine Green and Linda Parsons for their valuable help and useful reminders of deadlin es and requirements all these years. Finally, and most of all, I need to thank my fa mily for their love, company, and support.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................vi ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................1 Career Decision Self-Efficacy...............................................................................1 Social Cognitive Theory and Ca reer Decision Self-Efficacy................................2 Parenting Styles, Career Decision Se lf-Efficacy, and Ecological Theory............4 Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theo ry and Career Development............................7 Designing an Ecological Study: Pers on, Process, Context, and Time..........................9 Career Decision Self-Efficacy and Ecological Systems......................................13 The Family Microsystem.....................................................................................14 The Peer Microsystem.........................................................................................18 The Self-System..................................................................................................21 Macrosystem and Chronosystem Variables........................................................30 Purpose of the Study...................................................................................................37 Research Hypotheses..................................................................................................37 Moderating Effects Hypotheses..........................................................................38 Hypotheses of Relationships...............................................................................38 Significance of the Study............................................................................................39 Theoretical Significance......................................................................................39 Practical Significance..........................................................................................42 2 METHOD...................................................................................................................44 Participants.................................................................................................................45 Procedures...................................................................................................................45 Measures.....................................................................................................................46 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................59

PAGE 6

vi 3 RESULTS...................................................................................................................62 Characteristics of the Sample.....................................................................................63 Reliability of the Scales..............................................................................................64 Tests of Hypotheses....................................................................................................64 Tests for Interactions (Moderating Effects)........................................................65 Summary of Results for Tests of Moderation.....................................................69 Tests of Hypothesis 7 Through 11.......................................................................69 Summary of Results for Tests of Relationships..................................................72 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................86 Discussion of Findings...............................................................................................87 Results of Tests of Hypotheses of Moderated Relationships..............................89 Results of Tests of Hypothesis of Relationships.................................................97 Conclusions Based on Findings................................................................................105 Conclusions about Moderated Relationships....................................................107 Conclusions about Relationships.......................................................................112 Summary of Findings........................................................................................117 Implications of the Study..........................................................................................118 Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Future Research.....................121 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORMS...........................................................................124 Informed Consent (Form A).....................................................................................124 Informed Consent (Form B).....................................................................................125 Informed Consent (Form C).....................................................................................126 Informed Consent (Form D).....................................................................................127 B DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION........................................................................128 REFERENCES................................................................................................................131 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................142

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Shortened Version of Parental Author ity Questionnaire (PAQ-R) Final Item Selection and Factor Loadings ( N = 331).................................................................61 3-1 Means and Standard Deviations for All Variables in the Model ( N = 283).............74 3-2 Correlation Matrix for All Variables in the Model ( N = 283)..................................75 3-3 Internal Consistency for the Scale Scores on All Variables ( N = 413)....................77 3-4 Summary of GLM Analysis of the Moderating Effect of Peer Autonomy Support on the Relationships Between Per ceived Parenting Styles and Career Decision Self-Efficacy, with All Other Variables in the Model Controlled............78 3-5 Summary of GLM Analysis of the Mode rating Effect of Peer Control on the Relationships Between Perceived Paren ting Styles and Career Decision SelfEfficacy, with All Other Variab les in the Model Controlled...................................79 3-6 Summary of GLM Analyses of the Moderating Effect of Ethnicity on the Relationships Between Perceived Paren ting Styles and Career Decision SelfEfficacy, with All Other Variab les in the Model Controlled...................................80 3-7 Summary of GLM Analysis of th e Moderating Effect of Age on the Relationships Between Perceived Paren ting Styles and Career Decision SelfEfficacy, with All Other Variab les in the Model Controlled...................................81 3-8 Summary of GLM Analysis of the Mode rating Effect of Year in College on the Relationships Between Perceived Paren ting Styles and Career Decision SelfEfficacy, with All Other Variab les in the Model Controlled...................................82 3-9 Summary of GLM Analysis of th e Moderating Effect of Gender on the Relationships Between Perceived Paren ting Styles and Career Decision SelfEfficacy, with All Other Variab les in the Model Controlled...................................83 3-10 Summary of GLM Analysis for Predic tors of Career D ecision Self-Efficacy, with All Other Variables in the Model Controlled ( N = 283)..................................84 3-11 Parameter Estimates of Regression Analysis for Continuous Variables Predicting Career Decision Self-Efficacy ( N = 283)................................................85

PAGE 8

viii Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy FAMILIAL, INDIVIDUAL, SOCI AL-COGNITIVE, AND CONTEXTUAL PREDICTORS OF CAREER DECISION SELF-EFFICACY: AN ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE By Alexandra M. Ribadeneira December 2006 Chair: Patricia T. Ashton Major Department: Educational Psychology The role of career decision self-efficacy as a key aspect of the career development process is well-documented. However, re searchers have reco mmended expanding the study of career decision self-efficacy to in clude its contextual and social-cognitive antecedents. In response to this recomme ndation, the purpose of this study was to investigate familial, individual, social-cognitive, and contextual predictors of career decision self-efficacy in a research design based on ecological theory. The main focus of this study was the relationship between college studentsÂ’ perceptions of parenting styles and career decision self-effi cacy. These relationships were studied following Bronfenbre nnerÂ’s ecological model and included the person variables of cognitive ability, academic achievement, personality, and self-esteem, the process variables of perceived parenti ng styles, identity styles, peer autonomy support, and peer control in career decision-making, the c ontextual variables of gender, ethnicity,

PAGE 9

ix socioeconomic status, family conflict, and fa mily type, and the time variables of age and year in college. Participants included 413 st udents at the University of Florida who completed a take-home self-report questi onnaire. I first tested the hypotheses that peer autonomy support in career decisions, peer control in career decisions, ethni city, age, year in college, and gender moderate the relationshi p between perceived pa renting styles and career decision self-efficacy. Then, I tested si x hypotheses of predic tive relationships for the variables for which moderating effects were not found after te sting the first six hypotheses. Results of this study indicated that fam ilial (perceived authoritative fathering), individual (conscientiousness), and social-cognitive processe s (informational and diffuseavoidant identity styles) predicted career decision self-efficacy and contextual processes (peer controlling behaviors in career deci sions) moderated the relationship between perceived permissive mothering and career de cision self-efficacy. These results show that BronfenbrennerÂ’s ecological th eory of human development, BuriÂ’s perceived parenting styles framework, and social cognitive car eer theory provided useful insights for identifying variables related to career deci sion self-efficacy. However, the small amount of variance accounted for in this study tells us that more research is needed to identify other variables that contri bute to the prediction of car eer decision self-efficacy.

PAGE 10

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Career Decision Self-Efficacy Almost 40 years ago, Erik Erikson (1968) a sserted that the most important task adolescents and young adults need to addre ss as they form an identity and enter adulthood is that of finding an occupa tion. Due to considerable changes and unpredictability in the labor ma rket however, the task of c hoosing a career has become complicated by the possibility of having to make multiple occupational transitions throughout a lifetime (Ferrari, 1998; Reece & Miller, 2006; Ryan, Solberg, & Brown, 1996; Vondracek, 2001; Whiston & Keller, 2004). Therefore, developing career decision self-efficacy , defined as gaining confidence in the ability to perform career exploration activities and make career-related choices (Solber g, Good, Fischer, Brown, & Nord, 1995; Whiston & Keller, 2004), has become one of the most important and valuable aspects of the career development process (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2001; Ferrari, 1998; Wolfe & Betz, 2004). Unfortunately, although some students develop great confidence in their career de cision-making ability, others respond to career decision tasks with fear and uncertainty (Betz & Voyten, 1997; Gianakos, 2001; Guay, Ratelle, Senécal, Larose, & Deschenes, 2006; Mau, 2000; Reece & Miller, 2006; Ryan et al., 1996). To help adolescents and young adults struggling with caree r-related decisions, theorists, researchers, academic advisors, counselors, other prof essionals, and parents interested in the well-bei ng of youth will benefit from a better understanding of the

PAGE 11

2 factors that influence individual differences in career decision self-efficacy (Ryan et al., 1996). To contribute to the development of th is understanding, the purpose of this study was to examine familial, individual, social-cogni tive, and contextual predictors of career decision self-efficacy in college students. Th ree theoretical perspectives guided this study: (a) social cognitive car eer theory, (b) Buri's (1991) parenting styles framework, and (c) Bronfenbrenner's (1979, 1995) ecologica l model. These thre e perspectives are described in the following three sections. Social Cognitive Theory and Career Decision Self-Efficacy The study of career decision self-efficacy has been the focus of social-cognitive career development theorists (Taylor & Be tz, 1983). According to social-cognitive career-development theory, indivi duals vary in the perception of their ability to select goals, gather occupational information, solve problems, plan realistically, and appraise the self when faced with the responsibility of choosing a career (Gianakos, 2001; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994; Betz & Hackett, 2006 ). Researchers following this perspective have found that adolescents' and young adults' perceptions of their career decision selfefficacy predict career development and c hoice behavior (Gianakos, 2001; Lent et al., 1994). Most significant for this study, numer ous researchers have found a relationship between career decision self-efficacy and im portant career development outcomes, such as vocational indecision, caree r aspirations, career explorator y behaviors, career choice persistence, career commitment, and coping st rategies used when engaged in career exploration (Bandura et al., 2001; Chung, 2002; Gian akos, 1999, 2001; OÂ’Brien, Friedman, Tipton, & Linn, 2000; Ryan et al ., 1996; Whiston, 1996; Whiston & Keller, 2004).

PAGE 12

3 The importance of investigating and unde rstanding adolescents' and young adults' career decision self-efficacy as a crucial aspe ct of the career development process has been well documented (Ferrari, 1998; Giana kos, 2001; Whiston, 1996; Guay et al., 2006). However, several researchers have reco mmended expanding the study of career decision self-efficacy to examining its contextual and social-cognitive antecedents. This recommendation is based on the need to identity factors facilitating students' development of confidence in career decisionmaking behavior before they are faced with career choice responsibilities, and before problems in the career decision-making process arise (Bandura et al., 2001; Ferrari, 1998; Gianakos, 2001; Hackett, 1995; Vondracek, Lerner, & Schulenberg, 1986; Whiston, 1996). The aim of this study is to follow this advice and examine an important social context, the family of origin, where career decision self-efficacy may develop (Ryan et al., 1996; Whiston,1996; Whiston & Keller, 2004). In particular, in the present research I examined the relationship between perceptions of parenting styles during the formative years and career decision self-efficacy in college students. Most important, this relationship was examined within a model of individual, social-cognit ive, and contextual predictors that in conjunction with familial predictors may explain the development of career decision self-efficacy beliefs in college students better than previous models. In the following sections I present an overview of previous theoretical and empirical efforts aimed at looking at the rela tionship between family factors and career decision self-efficacy. I then point out some of the limitations of these previous efforts and propose an alternative approach to ex amining the relationship between familial factors and career decision self-efficacy. Specifically, I propose that a framework of

PAGE 13

4 familial influence not commonly used in the area of career development, that is, Buri's (1991) parenting styles fram ework, may provide a useful approach to examining the relationship between perceived parenting practices during the formative years and career decision self-efficacy in college students. Furthermore, I present an overview of Bronfenbrenner's (1979, 1995) ecological theory a nd its applicability to the area of career development and the study of the relationship between the familial factors of parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy in pa rticular. I explain in de tail the design of this study following Bronfenbrenner's ecological th eory guidelines. Each of the predictor variables included in this rese arch is described in relation to Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems model. Parenting Styles, Career Decision Se lf-Efficacy, and Ecological Theory The role of the family in career deci sion-making has been widely recognized by theorists and researchers who study career development (Ferry, Fouad, & Smith, 2000; Guay, Senécal, Gauthier, & Fernet, 2003; Lee & Hughey, 2001; Lopez, 1989; Lopez & Andrews, 1987; Whiston, 1996; Whiston & Ke ller, 2004). Despite this awareness, research examining familial predictors of career decision self-efficacy has not been extensive (Guay et al., 2003; Hargrove, Cr eagh, & Burgess, 2002; O' Brien et al., 2000; Whiston, 1996; Whiston & Keller, 2004). Res earchers have used various theoretical perspectives to investigate the relationship between the family and career decision selfefficacy, particularly family systems theo ry (Brachter, 1992; L opez, 1989; Lopez & Andrews, 1987; Hargrove et al., 2002; Ry an et al., 1996; Whiston, 1996), attachment theory (Blustein, Prezioso, & Palladino, 1995; Blustein, Walbridge, Friedlander, & Palladino, 1991; Lee & Hughey, 2001; O'Brien et al., 2000; Ryan et al., 1996; Tokar, Withrow, Hall, & Moradi, 2003; Wolfe & Betz, 2004), and separation-individuation

PAGE 14

5 theory (Blustein et al., 1991; Lee & Hughe y, 2001; Lucas, 1997; O'Brien et al., 2000; Tokar et al., 2003). However, the results of this research tend to show only weak relationships between the family variable s studied and career decision self-efficacy (Hargrove et al., 2002; Johnson, B uboltz, & Nichols, 1999; O' Br ien et al., 2000; Tokar et al., 2003; Whiston & Keller, 2004; Wolfe & Be tz, 2004). Moreover, these results appear inconclusive and inconsistent (Hargrove et al., 2002; T okar et al., 2003; Whiston, 1996; Whiston & Keller, 2004). Researchers have idenitfied a number of reasons for these inconsistencies, including disparity in the constructs and measures used across studies (Hargrove et al., 2002), the failure to take in to account multiple sources of individual and contextual influence that may confound the results, and the lack of focus on specific processes that serve as mechanisms thr ough which familial factors relate to career development variables and the development of career decision self -efficacy beliefs in particular (O'Brien et al., 2000; Wh iston,1996; Whiston & Keller, 2004). In this research I addressed these limitati ons by taking an alternative approach to the study of familial factors and career decision self-effi cacy. Specifically, I focused on examining parenting processes that might represent developmental mechanisms predictive of career decision self-efficacy beli efs in college students within a model of multiple individual, social-cognitive, and cont extual variables. The parental processes I examined were the combination of parental responsiveness and pare ntal control within the perceived parenting styl es of authorita tiveness (high resp onsiveness and high control), authoritarianism (low responsiveness and high control), and permissiveness (low responsiveness and low control) (Buri, 1991; Wintre & Yaffe, 2000). To investigate the relationship between the pe rceived parenting style variab les and career decision self-

PAGE 15

6 efficacy within a model of multiple individual and contextual influences, I conducted this research guided by an ecological theory framework. The usefulness of applying Bronfenbrenne rÂ’s (1979, 1995) ecological theory of human development to career development has been highlighted by several theorists of career development (Vondracek et al., 1986; Young, 1983). However, few researchers have used an ecological theory framework to investigate the career decision-making process or the development of career decisi on self-efficacy beliefs in particular (Cook, Heppner, & O'Brien, 2002a; Ferrari, 1998; Merrick, 1995). Moreover, although career development theorists have noted the applic ability of an ecological framework to the study of the family and career development, only a few researchers have examined the relationship of factors of fam ily of origin and career de cision self-efficacy through this theoretical perspective (Ferra ri, 1998; Vondracek et al., 198 6; Whiston & Keller, 2004). In acknowledgement of this research gap, in addition to contributing to a better understanding of familial processes predictiv e of career decision self-efficacy and the practical implications for parents, counsel ors, and mentors of youth tied to this knowledge, my goal was to expand the applicab ility of an ecologica l model to the study of career development. Career decision-ma king has not been commonly investigated through a developmental perspective in whic h contextual variables and processes are viewed as key to career decision-making (Cook et al., 2002a; Ferra ri, 1998; Vondracek, 2001; Vondracek et al., 1986). Because developm ental processes and contextual variables are included as key variables in this investigation of predic tors of career decision selfefficacy, this research has both prac tical and theoretical significance.

PAGE 16

7 Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theory and Career Development BronfenbrennerÂ’s ecological theory of hu man development is a useful framework for understanding the complex in terplay of individual, soci al-cognitive, and contextual influences on career development outcome s (Ferrari, 1998; Merrick, 1995; Vondracek et al., 1986; Young, 1983). According to Bronfenbr enner (1979; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998), human development comprises an evolving process of organism-environment interactions that result in bot h stability and change in the characteristics of individuals, their conception of the environment, and th eir relationships to the environment through the life course and across generations. The result of this interaction is the person's increased or decreased ability to function in a changing environm ent (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 199 8; Vondracek et al., 1986). The ecological view of developmen t is suitable for understanding career development and career decision self-efficacy in particular for several reasons. First, several authors have suggested that the study of career development should focus on processes that involv e the individual's ongoing transacti ons with a changing social and career environment and not only on the cont ent of career decisi ons (Ferrari, 1998; Vondracek, 2001; Vondracek et al., 1986; Young, 1983). This position fits well with the dynamic conception of development inhere nt in the ecological perspective. Second, theorists have pointed out that career development research and interventions have overwhelmingly focused on properties of the individual at the expense of a comprehensive examinati on of the setting and the indivi dual's relational environment (Cook et al., 2002a; Vondracek, 2001; Vondrace k et al., 1986; Young, 1983). Yet, career development, which represents the selecti on of roles and the implementation of an identity through a person's lif e work (Merrick, 1995), cannot be conceived without an

PAGE 17

8 understanding of the social cont ext from which the individual learns and adopts roles or the social environments to which the indi vidual contributes (F errari, 1998; Merrick, 1995; Vondracek, 2001; Young, 1983). For this reason, a theoretical perspective that emphasizes the investigation of multiple sources of influence within the individual, in relationship to significant people, and within the broa der social context, as is the case of Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory of human development, is notably pertinent to the study of career development and processes such as career decision-self-efficacy (Ferrari, 1998; Merrick, 1995; Vondracek et al., 1986; Young, 1983). Furthermore, Bronfenbrenner's (1995) eco logical theory of human development provides a systematic guide for conceptualiz ing and designing a comprehensive research study that includes multiple developmental antecedents to the formation of career decision self-efficacy beliefs (Ferrari, 1998). In particular, a process, person, context, time (PPCT) model based on Bronfenbrenne r's specifications on how to design an ecological study of human developmen t was used in this research. Finally, a key aspect of ecological resear ch is the inclusion of variables that represent proximal processes or relational mechanisms su ch as specific activities, interpersonal interactions, and role-dictated behaviors within developmental contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1995; Bronfenbrenner & Mo rris, 1998). In an ecological model, proximal processes are viewed as the "engi nes of development" (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 1023). That is, individual characteristics an d characteristics of the immediate environment are recognized to ha ve an indirect impact on developmental outcomes by operating through proximal processe s that occur over extended periods of time within the individual and between the individual and developmental contexts

PAGE 18

9 (Bronfenbrenner 1979, 1995; Bronfenbrenne r & Morris, 1998). For this reason, Bronfenbrenner (1995) pointed out that not including variables representing proximal processes in developmental research mises timates the effect of person and context variables on the development of psychosocial characteristics. Recognizing the importance of this assertion, I included in this st udy several proximal processes or relational mechanisms hypothesized to predict career decision self-efficacy beliefs in college students. Designing an Ecological Study: Pers on, Process, Context, and Time According to Bronfenbrenner (1995), in designing a research study based on ecological theory, researchers must include va riables predictive of the development of psychosocial characteristics th at represent the four com ponents of context, person, process, and time. Namely, a study based on ecological theory must include predictor variables that represent the se tting or environment where ac tual development takes place (context), the personal ch aracteristics of indivi duals in that context (person), the proximal processes or mechanisms that explain the in teraction between the developing individual and the setting and people within the devel opmental context (proces s), and, finally, the changes taking place over time within the individual and the environmental context (time) (Bronfenbrenner, 1995; Br onfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Following Bronfenbrenner's (1995; Bronf enbrenner & Morris, 1998) ecological approach, I investigated the fo llowing person, context, proces s, and time variables related to the family context that might be predictive of career decision se lf-efficacy beliefs in college students: (a) person variables that represent individual differences (cognitive ability, academic achievement, personality, self -esteem); (b) contextual variables (gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, family conf lict, family type); (c) process variables

PAGE 19

10 operating within the family context (perceived parenting styles), with in the self (identity styles), and within other relational contexts th at affect the individual, the family context, and career decision self-efficacy beliefs (peer autonomy support and peer control in relation to career choices); (d) time vari ables that represent relationships across generations (perception of parenting styles during the formative years), and cohort differences (age and year in college). In addition, Bronfenbrenner's ecological model (1979, 1995) provides a conception of the developmental context as representi ng overlapping levels of influence ranging from direct face-to-face interac tions within proximal settings to indirect influences from distal contexts that nonetheless affect indi vidual development (Ferrari, 1998; Merrick, 1995; Vondracek et al., 1986; Young, 1983). That is, Bronfenbrenner's view of the environment is not a simple unified context. Rather he divided it for research purposes into the study of five hier archically embedded ecological systems from which relevant predictors of developmental outcomes mu st be selected when conducting ecological research (Young, 1983). These ecological systems are the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and the chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1995). The most immediate levels of contextu al influence according to Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1995) are the microsystem and the mesosystem. The microsystem represents primarily the activities and role transactions within settings in which the developing individual directly partic ipates in sustained and pr ogressively more complex interpersonal interactions (B ronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Fe rrari, 1998). The family or the peer contexts are examples of ecologi cal microsystems (Br onfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Vondracek et al., 1986, Young, 1983). The mesosystem represents the

PAGE 20

11 interrelations between two or more microsystems, and it is characterized primarily by communication between the microsystems a nd the experience of knowledge from the settings that affects the deve loping individual synergistically or in an inhibitory manner (Merrick, 1995). The elements of the mesosyst em are also interpersonal interactions in which the developing individual particip ates actively (Bronf enbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Ferrari, 1998; Merrick, 1995; Vondracek et al., 1986; Young 1983). The more distal sources of contextual influences on the developing individual are conceptualized in Bronfenbrenner's (1979, 1995) model as exosystems, macrosystems, and chronosystems. Exosystems represent cont exts in which the developing person does not participate directly, but the people in the microsystems do, and through the influence of microsystem processes that affect people with whom the developing person interacts, the individual is nonetheless a ffected indirectly. An example of an exosystem influence is that of interpersonal interactions in a parent's workplace affecting parent-child interactions in the family microsystem (Br onfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Ferrari, 1998; Merrick, 1995; V ondracek et al., 1986; Young 1983). The next ecological system, the macrosystem, does not refer to specific contexts of influence but to the ideologi cal components of the society that underlie the form and content of interactions w ithin the more proximal sett ings (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Cook, Heppne r, & O' Brien, 2002b; Ferrari, 1998; Merrick, 1995; Vondracek et al., 1986; Young, 1983). These components represent primarily norms and beliefs emanating from overarching cultural, economic, political, and social blueprints that implicitly affect ac tivities, roles, and interpersonal interactions

PAGE 21

12 in the microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1995; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Cook et al., 2002b; Ferrari, 1998; Merrick, 1995; Vondracek et al., 1986; Young, 1983). Ultimately, the chronosystem does not represent a specific context of environmental influence but rather refers to time and timing-related variables that must be acknowledged in the de sign of ecological research. Examples of these variables are th e components of historical time, elements representing crossgeneration relationships, and age differen ce (Bronfenbrenner, 1995; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). In the most recent revision of the eco logical model, referred to as the bioecological model , Bronfenbrenner (1995; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) gave added primacy to the developing individual's biopsychological ch aracteristics, that is, the self-system. Bronfenbrenner noted that in developmental research, person char acteristics are more often studied as developmental outcomes than as precursor variable s representing sources of variation that make the person more or less susceptible to cont extual conditions and processes (Bronfenbrenner, 1995; Bronfenbre nner & Morris, 1998). From a bioecological perspective, the individual is considered a coordinated system in which various genetic, cognitive, social-cognitive, affec tive, emotional, and motivatio nal characteristics interact with one another and the envi ronment to influence the operation of proximal processes and the consequent developmental outcomes (Bronfenbrenner, 1995; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Ferrari, 1998). The acknowledgement of individual charac teristics as precursor variables in developmental research reflects a concepti on of the person as an active agent of development within the self and the envir onment (Bronfenbrenner, 1995; Ferrari, 1998;

PAGE 22

13 Sontag, 1996). In Bronfenbrenner's view, it is not so much the objective context that affects development, but how the individual perceives the context (Ferrari, 1998; Sontag, 1996). That is, the environment is subjectiv ely experienced and acquires meaning and influence from the way the individual experi ences the self and the surroundings (Adams, Ryan, & Keating, 2000; Cook et al., 2002b; Ferr ari, 1998). According to Bronfenbrenner (1995), precursor variables repr esenting the self-sys tem must be included in ecological research designs. This advice was followed in this study by includi ng the variables of cognitive ability, academic achievement, persona lity, self-esteem, and identity processing orientations. Altogether, person, process, context, and time variab les within the ecological systems were investigated in this study. Fo llowing is a description of the ecological systems variables included in the design of this research. Career Decision Self-Efficacy and Ecological Systems The main interest in this research was th e family microsystem, but not in isolation. As represented in the ecologica l perspective, person, process, context, and time variables of the ecological system were examined, and their independent and in teractive influences in relation to the family microsystem were investigated. In partic ular, in this study I examined (a) the family microsystem process variables of perceived parenting styles and the contextual variables of family conflict and family type; (b) the peer microsystem process variables of control and support of autonomy in career choice-making; (c) the mesosystem, through the analysis of the intera ction of the family and peer microsystem variables; (d) the self-system or person variables of cognitive ability (SAT), academic achievement (GPA), personality (neuroticism, conscientiousne ss, extraversion), and selfesteem; (e) the self system proximal process variables of identity styles (informational,

PAGE 23

14 normative, diffuse-avoidant); (f) the macros ystem variables of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status; (g) the chronosystem, by including in the study college students' perceptions of parenting during their formative years and the va riables of age and year in college. The Family Microsystem Within the family microsystem, I examin ed the process variables of perceived parenting styles and the contextu al variables of conflict in the family of origin and type of family of origin. Students' perceptions of th e authoritative, author itarian, and permissive perceived parenting style have not been investigated as precur sors of career decision selfefficacy. However, extensive research has documented positive and negative developmental outcomes associated with pe rceived parenting styl es among adolescents and young adults (Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Gonzalez, 1998; Hickman, Bartholomae, & McKenry, 2000; Klein, OÂ’ Br yant, & Hopkins, 1996; Steinb erg, 2001; Strage & Brandt, 1999; Wintre & Yaffe, 2000). Furthermore, variation in warmt h, responsiveness, demandingness, involvement, control, and suppo rt of autonomy that are conceptually related to parenting styles, as defined in this research, have been found to predict psychosocial outcomes associated with car eer development and career decision selfefficacy beliefs in particular (Guay et al., 2003; Guerra & Braungart-Rieker, 1999; Kracke, 1997; Whiston & Keller, 2004). To examine the possibility that these relationships could also be found between parenting styles and career decision selfefficacy, perceived parenting styles were examined in this research as predictors of career decision self-efficacy. Further, the variables of family-of-origin conflict and family-oforigin type were accounted for in this invest igation because previous research shows an association between these variables, car eer decision-making outcomes, and career

PAGE 24

15 decision self-efficacy beliefs in partic ular (Dodge, 2001; Schulenberg, Vondracek, & Crouter, 1984; Scott & Church, 2001; Whiston & Keller, 2004). Perceived parenting styles . I studied the relationship of the parental context to the development of individual's career deci sion self-efficacy beliefs by examining the proximal processes of perceived parenting styles (Baumrind, 1971; Buri, 1991; Steinberg, 2001). Specifically, the construct of parenting styles was deri ved from a clearly defined conceptual framework of perceived parent al influence emphasizing the distinction between three styles of parenting: authorit ative, authoritarian, and permissive. These styles are conceptualized in terms of the dimensions of control and responsiveness in parent-child relationships (Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Buri, 1991; Stra ge & Brandt, 1999; Wintre & Yaffe, 2000). Authoritarian parenting is characterized by high control and low responsiveness. The emphasis is on enforci ng obedience, setting rigid boundaries, and using punishment as a disciplinary measure. Reciprocal communica tion between parent and child is discouraged and conformity to the parents' rules is demanded. The childrearing goal is order and control. Authoritative parenting embodies high control and high responsiveness. The emphasis is on firm but fair discipline, clear rules, and open communication. The needs of children are ac knowledged and children are allowed to participate in decision-making, although parent s maintain ultimate control in terms of authority. Permissive parenting is typified by low control and low responsiveness. Rules or demands made upon children are not empha sized. Decision-making rests with the child. Permissive parents tend to remain uninvol ved and offer little in terms of guidance and support (Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Gonzalez, 1998; Hickman et al., 20 00; Klein et al., 1996; Strage & Brandt, 1999; Wintre & Yaffe, 2000).

PAGE 25

16 Most research on parenting styles ha s focused on young children and adolescents (Gonzalez, 1998). However, intere st in examining the role of perceived parenting styles in the development of young adults has increas ed recently. As Strage and Brandt (1999) suggested, parenting styles “might well conti nue to be important, even when students are no longer in daily contact w ith their parents” (p. 147). Several researchers have investigated the influence of perceived pa renting styles on academic achievement and adjustment to college (Hickman et al., 2000; Strage & Brandt, 1999; Weiss & Schwarz, 1996; Wintre & Sugar, 2000; Wintre & Yaffe, 20 00). Others have studied the relationship between perceived parenting styl es and college students’ sel f-esteem (Klein et al., 1996), and college students’ motivation (Gonzalez, 199 8). All of these res earchers have found a significant relationship between an authorita tive parenting style and positive student outcomes, such as higher levels of academic competence, higher self-esteem, or greater motivation, particularly among middle-class, Caucasian college students (Park & Bauer, 2002; Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brow n, 1992; Wintre & Yaffe, 2000). In light of the consistent pattern of positive relationships between authoritative parenting and psychosocial outcomes, in this study authoritative parenting was expected to be positively related to career decision self-efficacy. Furthermore, in the university academic context, less positive developmental outcomes have been found to be associated with perceived authoritarian a nd permissive parenting, particularly in American universities where autonomy, self -regulation, persistence, and achievement are emphasized (Strage & Brandt, 1999; Wintre & Yaffe, 2000). Because this study was conducted in the social context of an Ameri can university, authorit arian and permissive perceived parenting styles were predicted to be inversely related to career decision self-

PAGE 26

17 efficacy. It should be noted, however, that th is pattern of relati onships was expected primarily among middle-class, Caucasian co llege students and wa s not expected to generalize to students from all sociocultural groups (Park & Bauer, 2002; Steinberg et al., 1992) Family conflict and family type . According to researchers interested in examining familial factors and career development, family conflict is one of the most significant familial predictors of career decision-making outcomes, including career decision selfefficacy (Blustein et al., 1991; Dodge, 2001; Hargrove et al ., 2002; Johnson et al., 1999; Lopez, 1989; Lucas, 1997; Penick & Jense n, 1992; Scott & Church, 2001; Whiston & Keller, 2004). Specifically, research indicates that the more students perceive conflict in family relationships, the lower their career decision self-efficacy (Dodge, 2001; Hargrove et al., 2002). To examine whether maternal a nd paternal perceived parental styles and career-decision self-efficacy are related beyond the influence of perceptions of familial conflict, in this study I included pe rceptions of family conflict. Furthermore, although family-of-origin type has not been previously studied in relation to career decision self-efficacy, so me researchers have reported an association between family type and career developmen t outcomes in young adults (Schulenberg et al., 1984; Scott & Church, 2001). For example, in an early review of the literature of family influences on vocational development that included an examination of family-oforigin structure variables as predictors of vocational deve lopment, Schulenberg et al. (1984) described youngsters from single-pare nt families as having lower educational attainment, lower career aspirations, and lower vocational maturity, particularly when the absent parent, primarily the fa ther, was perceived negatively.

PAGE 27

18 Also, Scott and Church (2001) reported that college students whose parents had divorced were more undecided about their career than students from intact families were. These researchers had hypothesized that, when compared to children from intact families, children whose parents had divorced may be more committed to their career choice and prone to career choice foreclosure, assumi ng greater urgency in making career choices due to the possibility of greater financia l press. However, these hypotheses were not confirmed, and these researchers found that st udents with divorced parents were less committed to a career choice and also less likely to foreclose than students from intact families. Because of the diversity of fam ily structures that young adults nowadays experience and because various researchers ha ve acknowledged the need to examine how these diverse experiences affect career devel opment outcomes, the variable of family-oforigin type was included in this study. The Peer Microsystem Research examining the relationship be tween the peer microsystem and career development outcomes is limited (Felsman & Blustein, 1999; Guay et al., 2003; Wolfe & Betz, 2004). Nonetheless, the si gnificant role that peers ha ve been shown to have on numerous areas of adolescents' and young adults' academic and social development (Berndt, 1996; Steinberg, Dar ling, & Fletcher, 1995) appear s to extend to the career development realm as well (Felsman & Blus tein, 1999; Guay et al., 2003; Guay et al., 2006; Whiston & Keller, 2004; Wolfe & Betz, 2004). Namely, peer microsystem variables have been reported to have a significant relati onship with career development outcomes such as career decision-making au tonomy (Guay et al., 2003; Guay et al., 2006), career indecision (Guay et al., 2006; Wolfe & Betz, 2004), career exploration,

PAGE 28

19 career commitment (Felsman & Blustein, 1999 ), and, most important, career decision self-efficacy (Guay et al., 2003; Wolfe & Betz, 2004). In particular, researchers studying the re lationship between parental and peer autonomy support and peer control in caree r choice-making and career decision selfefficacy have found that peer autonomy suppor t and control predict career decision selfefficacy beyond the influence of parental be haviors (Guay et al., 2003). Peer autonomy supportive behaviors, such as pr ovision of help and informati on related to career choices, have been found to foster career decidedness vi a career decision se lf-efficacy and career decision-making autonomy (Guay et al., 2003) . Also, peer controlling behaviors in relation to career choices, such as incompeten ce feedback or criticiz ing career choices, have been shown to foster career indecision by negatively influencing career decision self-efficacy and career decision-making au tonomy (Guay et al., 2003). Considering these previous findings within the peer microsystem, I examined the process variable of peer support of autonomy in career decisionmaking and the process variable of peer control in career decision-making as predicto rs of career decision self-efficacy in college students. Specifically, autonomy support in career decision-making in this study was defined following the Guay et al. operat ionalization of peer autonomy support as informational feedback and involvement of peers in studentsÂ’ career decision-making process. Peer controlling be haviors in regard to career decision-making was likewise defined in this study following the Guay et al. operationalization of p eer control as peers' provision of incompetence feedback and peers' acting in constraining, competitive, and imposing ways in relation to career decision-making.

PAGE 29

20 Moreover, I examined the role of these p eer microsystem variables as moderators of the relationship between parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy. According to Steinberg and Darling ( 1994), the relationship between parental dimensions and developmental outcomes associated with academic achievement in adolescence tend to be moderated by the influence of peers. Namel y, in relation to authoritative parenting, the positive effects of an authorit ative parenting style on school related outcomes such as academic achievement has been shown to be moderated by the peer group to which students belong (Steinberg & Darling, 1994). In other words, the commonly reported positive effects of authoritative parenting on, fo r example, academic achievement seem to be evident only among those students who also belong to a peer gr oup that supports and values academic achievement. According to Steinberg and Darling, the positive academic outcomes related to authoritativ e parenting tend to be offset when students belong to peer groups that do not value and support academic achievement. Furthermore, the negative achievement outcomes associated with non-auth oritative parenting styles may also be counterbalanced by peer supportive behaviors in academic contexts (Steinberg et al., 1995). To investigate whether these relationsh ips within the peer-family mesosystem occur also with career decision self-efficacy, I analyzed the interaction between parental and peer variables and career decision self-e fficacy. It is possible that the interactive effects that have been shown in relation to authoritative and non-au thoritative parenting and academic achievement may also be s hown in relation to other school-related developmental outcomes such as career deci sion self-efficacy. Specifically, I examined if positive relationships between the most supportive perceived parenting styles

PAGE 30

21 (authoritative mothering and fathering) a nd career decision self-efficacy would be stronger when, in addition, students experienced a high level of peer support. Also, the possibility that peer supportiv e behaviors could offset the negative effects of the more detrimental perceived parenting styles (aut horitarian and permissive) on career decision self-efficacy was examined. Moreover, I invest igated the possibility that the positive relationships between the most supportive pe rceived parenting st yles (authoritative mothering and fathering) and career decision self-efficacy w ould be stronger when peer controlling behaviors in relation to career decisions were minimal. Also, it was suggested that positive relationships between the most supportive parenting styles (authoritative mothering and fathering) and career decision self-efficacy co uld be offset by a high level of peer controlling behaviors in relation to career decisions. Furthe rmore, the possibility that negative relationships between the more detrimental perceived parenting styles (authoritarian and permissive) and career d ecision self-efficacy could be stronger for students who experienced high le vels of peer controlling be haviors was examined. The Self-System According to Bronfenbrenner's ( 1995; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) bioecological view, the indivi dual as the perceive r and interpreter of external reality should receive primacy in the study of human development. To acknowledge this recommendation, in this research the self -system person variables of academic ability (SAT), academic achievement (GPA), personality (neuroticism, conscientiousness, extraversion), self-esteem, and the self-sys tem process variables of identity styles (informational, normative, diffuse), which have been associated with identity and career development outcomes, were included in the proposed model of multiple predictors of career decision self-efficacy.

PAGE 31

22 Ability and academic achievement . Researchers who have included the variables of ability, particularly by measuring Scholas tic Achievement Test (SAT) or American College Test (ACT) scores, in studies examin ing variation in caree r decision self-efficacy have mostly found weak and nonsignificant re lationships between scholastic aptitude scores and career decision self-efficacy (Betz & Taylor, 2001; Luzzo, 1993, 1996; Taylor & Betz, 1983). Furthermore, although a significant relations hip between higher grades and career decision self-efficacy has been repo rted by some researchers (Betz & Taylor, 2001; Peterson, 1993), other resear chers have found no relatio nship between grade point average (GPA) and career decision self-effi cacy (Luzzo, 1993; Betz & Taylor, 2001). To clarify the inconsistency of results in the few empirical studies that have examined achievement and ability variables in relation to career decision self-efficacy, and because it seems conceptually reasona ble to hypothesize that student s who are more successful academically may also feel more confiden t about making academic and career choices than students who struggle academically (Peterson, 1993), GPA and SAT scores were included in this research. Personality . Researchers interested in adol escent and young adult students' development have pointed out the need to account for individual differences in personality and affective dispositions when examining students' developmental outcomes in the university context (Dollinger, 1995; Grotevant, 1992; Wintre & Sugar, 2000). Recently, researchers have conducted revea ling studies on the relationship between college students' personality and psychological outcomes that are relevant to this study, such as university adjustment and achie vement, identity formation, and career development (Dollinger, 1995; Lounsbury, Hu tchens, & Loveland, 2005; Reed, Bruch, &

PAGE 32

23 Haase, 2004; Tokar, Fischer, & Subic h, 1998; Wang, Jome, Haase, & Bruch, 2006; Wintre & Sugar, 2000). In particular, this research has yielded information about significant relationships between personality variables and career decision-making outcomes, including career decision self-e fficacy (Dollinger, 1995; Lounsbury et al., 2005; Reed et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2006; Wintre & Sugar, 2000). According to researchers fa voring the five-factor model of personality, commonly known as the Big Five Model (Costa & McCrae, 1992; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; McCrae & John, 1992), personality comprises a tendency to act in ways defined by a predisposition that becomes apparent early in life (John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992; Reed et al., 2004). The theory of th e Big Five holds that most personality dispositions can be subsumed by the factor s of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, and Agr eeableness (Costa & McCrae, 1992; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992). Specifi cally, Neuroticism refers to a tendency to experience negative affect, for example fear, sadness, self-consciousness, vulnerability, and hostility (John & Srivastava, 1999; McCr ae & John, 1992; Reed et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2006; Wintre & Sugar, 2000). Extraversion re fers to a disposition for positive affect, for instance warmth, activity, assertiveness, sociability, and energy (John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992; Reed et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2006; Wintre & Sugar, 2000). Openness to Experience refers to the tendency to be receptive to new ideas and experiences, creativity, originality, curiosity, a nd attentiveness to inner feelings (Reed et al., 2004; McCrae & John, 1992; Wintre & S ugar, 2000). Conscientiousness refers to characteristics such as personal compet ence, diligence, organization, achievement striving, and persistence (John & Srivastava , 1999; McCrae & John, 1992; Reed et al.,

PAGE 33

24 2004; Wintre & Sugar, 2000), and Agreeablene ss refers to a tendency to be friendly, altruistic, empathetic, modest, and trusti ng (John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992; Reed et al., 2004; Wintre & Sugar, 2000). Substantial empirical evidence supports Costa and McCrae's (1992) claim that the most salient factors of pers onality functioning can be represented by this five-factor model of personality (John & Srivastava, 1999; Reed et al., 2004; Tokar et al., 1998). Furthermore, of these factors, Neuroticis m, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness have consistently shown a relationship with career variables such as career exploration, selfexploration, vocational interests, career indeci sion, and, most important for this research, career decision self-efficacy (Reed et al., 2004; Tokar et al., 1998). Taking into account these previous findings, the th ree personality factors of Ne uroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness were included as predictors in this study. Although only a few researchers have exam ined the relationship between the Big Five personality factors and career decision self-efficacy (Tokar et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2006), some relationship patterns between Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness and career decision self-e fficacy have been revealed (Reed et al., 2004; Tokar et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2006). Spec ifically, Neuroticism has been shown to be negatively related to career decision self -efficacy (Guay et al., 2003; Reed et al., 2004; Tokar et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2006) and positively rela ted to career indecision, a variable that has been consis tently shown to be negatively associated with career decision self-efficacy (Tokar et al., 1998). Further, Ex traversion and Conscientiousness have also been found to be positively related to caree r decision self-efficacy in some research studies (Reed et al., 2004; Tokar et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2006).

PAGE 34

25 According to Reed et al. (2004), the nega tive relationship betw een Neuroticism and career decision self-efficacy may be explained by the tendency of individuals showing higher Neuroticism to experience general negative affectivity, self-deprecation, and feelings of vulnerability that could lead to beliefs of low capacity for performing career exploration tasks successfully. Furthermore, these researcher s suggested that the positive relationship between Extraversion and career decision self-efficacy may result from the assertiveness, gregariousness, and positive affect characteristic of extraversion that could facilitate the social transactions necessary for accomplishing career search tasks. Finally, Reed et al. (2004) proposed that the positive relationship between Conscientiousness and career decision self-efficacy might be relate d to the discipline and persistence that characterize conscientiousness. These characte ristics possibly lead conscientious students to follow through and complete career explor ation activities. Thr ough this action, these students possibly build career search experi ences that become sources of competence beliefs in the process of caree r search (Reed et al., 2004). It should be noted that a relationship between career decision self-efficacy and Openness to experience and Agreeableness has not been found consistently in previous research (Reed et al., 2004; Tokar et al., 1998). For this reason, these two five-factor personality variables were not in cluded in this study. In sum, in this research the fivefactor model personality vari ables of Neuroticism, Extrav ersion, and Conscientiousness were examined as predictors of career decision self-efficacy in college students. Self-esteem . In this study I also controlled fo r the variable of self-esteem. Various researchers examining individual differences in career decision self-efficacy have pointed to self-esteem as one of the most significan t predictors of career decision self-efficacy

PAGE 35

26 (Betz & Taylor, 2001; Creed, Patton, & Bartrum, 2004; Gianakos, 1995, 1999, 2001). Namely, higher career decision self-efficacy has been reported in students showing higher self-esteem (Betz & Taylor, 2001; Creed et al., 2004; Gianakos, 1995, 1999, 2001). According to Betz and Taylor (2001), a positive relationship between self-esteem and career decision self-efficacy is likely becau se of a tendency for career decision selfefficacy to be associated in general with indices of what they referred to as the healthy personality (p. 17). Identity styles . According to Bronfenbrenner (1995; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998), an important aspect of the self-system that needs to be included in an ecological study of human development is a force or motivational process component of the selfsystem. A social-cognitive motivational aspect of the self-system that has been associated with an orientation to engage in exploration and decisionmaking in different identity domains, including the occupati onal domain, is that of iden tity styles, which represent varied approaches to identity rele vant decision-making (Berzonsky, 1989, 2004; Grotevant, 1987). In this research I examin ed identity styles as self-system process variables that may be predictive of career decision self-efficacy independently and in conjunction with multiple individual and c ontextual predictors. The identity style construct has been widely investigated by researchers interested in the psychological adjustment of adolescents and young adu lts (Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000, 2005), and a few researchers have examined links between identity styles and outcomes of career development (Berzonsky & Adams, 1999; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2005; Boyd, Hunt, Kandell, & Lucas, 2003). However, to date an investiga tion of a relationship between identity styles and career decision self-efficacy in particular has not been conducted. Yet,

PAGE 36

27 a relationship between identity styles and career decision self-efficacy is examined in this research because a relationship between identity styles and career decision self-efficacy can be predicted from research showing an association between the identity style construct and identity status develo pment (Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000, 2005; Berzonsky & Neimeyer, 1994; Grotevant, 1987; Schwartz, Mullis, Waterman, & Dunham, 2000; Vleioras & Bosma, 2005), whic h in turn has been associat ed with outcomes of career decision-making related to career decision self-efficacy, such as career indecision (Cohen, Chartrand, & Jowdy, 1995; Vondracek et al., 1995). The concept of identity styles was in troduced by Berzonsky (1989), who proposed a social-cognitive model of identity formation focusing on individual differences in decision-making and problem-solving styles in relation to identity relevant issues (Schwartz, 2001). Specifically, Berzonsky (1989) proposed three identity processing orientations or styles (informative, normativ e, diffuse-avoidant) to explain individual differences in the way that issues of iden tity development are approached (Berzonsky, 1989, 1999, 2003; Berzonsky & Adams, 1999; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2005; Bosma & Kunnen, 2001; Schwartz, 2001; Vleioras & Bosma, 2005). Berzonsky suggested that every individual is capable of using the di fferent decision-making and problem solving strategies underlying all thr ee orientations. However, a pr eferred style of thinking and behaving when making identity relevant choices has been found to characterize individuals as they approach or avoid iden tity development tasks (Berzonsky & Adams, 1999; Schwartz, 2001). Furthermore, the three id entity styles have been found to relate differentially to outcomes related to occ upational decision-making (Berzonsky & Adams, 1999, Berzonsky & Kuk, 2005).

PAGE 37

28 As specified by Berzonsky's identity styles model (Berzonsky, 1989, 1999, 2003; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2005; Berzonsky et al., 199 9; Nurmi et al., 1997; Schwartz, 2001), individuals who prefer an informational appr oach to identity development tasks tend to search for, evaluate, and use information a bout the self and the de velopmental context. Openness to revising and modifying self-views when needed characterizes individuals who approach identity issues using an informational processing style (Berzonsky & Sullivan, 1992; Berzonsky et al., 1999). Conversely, individuals exhibiting a normative orientation when confronted w ith identity development tasks tend to conform and prefer following expectations prescribed by signifi cant others or by the norms of a reference group (Berzonsky, 2003; Berzonsky et al., 1999; Sc hwartz, 2001). Individuals who take a normative approach to identity formation tend to avoid introspection and information that contradicts the socially defined self (Berzonsky, 1999, 2003; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000; Berzonsky & Sullivan, 1992). Fina lly, individuals displaying a diffuse-avoidant identity processing style tend to avoid de aling with self-rel evant decisions for as long as possible and appear to comply with situational dema nds superficially instea d of making long-term identity-relevant choices (Berzonsky, 1992a, 1999, 2003; Berzonsky & Adams, 1999; Berzonsky & Ferrari, 1996; Berzonsky et al., 1999; Nurmi et al., 1997; Schwartz, 2001). Numerous studies support the basic premis es of the identity styles framework (Berzonsky, 1992a, 2003; Berzonsky & Adams, 1999; Berzonsky & Ferrari, 1996; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2005; Berzonsky et al., 199 9; Boyd et al., 2003; Nurmi et al., 1997; Schwartz, 2001), and researcher s have reported key relations hips between the different identity styles and outcomes of psychological development, such as coping strategies, psychological well-being, problem solving stra tegies, emotional responses to identity

PAGE 38

29 related issues and conflicts, openness to ideas, introspectiveness, flexibility of choices, academic persistence and success, among other related outcomes (Berzonsky, 1992a, 1999, 2003; Berzonsky & Adams, 1999; Berzon sky & Ferrari, 1996; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2005; Bosma & Kunnen, 2001; Schwartz, 2001). However, as mentioned earlier, few researchers have examined the relations hip between identity styles and career development outcomes (Berzonsky & Adams, 1999; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2005; Boyd et al., 2003) and career decision self-efficacy in par ticular. Because research in this area is limited, this investigation may contribute to the advancement of knowledge about the role of identity styles in applied settings in a ddition to contributing to the development of a better understanding of social-cognitive antece dents to career decision self-efficacy. In this research, on the basis of a conceptu al understanding of the characteristics of each identity style and career decision self -efficacy, I hypothesized that an informationoriented identity style is positively related to career decision self-efficacy. Students who tend to approach identity relevant choices us ing an informational style are described as actively engaged in exploration of the self and the social context when facing identity relevant decisions (Berzonsky, 1989, 1999, 2003; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2005; Berzonsky & Neimeyer, 1994; Berzonsky et al., 1999; Nurmi et al., 1997; Schwartz, 2001). In view of this description, it is also lik ely that students who approach identity relevant decisions through an informational identity style may gain experience in selecting goals, gathering occupational information, and solving career ch oice problems when confronted with the process of career choice. This experience may in turn translate into greater confidence in their ability to engage in career decision-maki ng tasks, resulting in greater career decision self-efficacy. This assertion follows from Bandura's (1986) proposition that one of the

PAGE 39

30 most important sources of self-efficacy belief s is performance accomplishments, that is, a history of past successful or unsuccessful experiences in a particular domain (Bandura, 1986; Hackett & Byars, 1996; Betz & Hackett, 2006). Further, it was hypothesized that both normative and diffuse-avoidant identity processing orientations are inve rsely related to career deci sion self-efficacy. Students who tend to approach identity relevant choices using a normative identity style are described as engaged in restri cted exploration of the self and the occupational context in favor of following others' expectatio ns (Berzonsky, 1999, 2003; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000, 2005; Berzonsky & Sullivan, 1992). In light of this description, these studentsÂ’ experiences with selecting goals, gathering occupational information, and problem solving in the realm of career choice may be limited, and thei r confidence in engaging in career search process tasks may be affected ne gatively due to this lack of experience. Likewise, students who tend to approach id entity relevant choices using a diffuseavoidant style are described as avoiding self-exploration and showing compliance with situational demands when faced with iden tity relevant choices (Berzonsky, 1999, 2003; Berzonsky & Adams, 1999; Berzonsky & Ferrari, 1996; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2005; Berzonsky et al., 1999; Nurmi et al., 1997; Schwartz, 2001). On the basis of this description, it is possible to in fer that these students may also not have enough of the self and career exploration experiences or perfor mance accomplishments that could build the confidence necessary to con tinually engage in the pr ocess of career search. Macrosystem and Chronosystem Variables In this research I examined macrosystem influences on career decision self-efficacy in terms of the variables of gender, ethnicity, and socio economic status. According to Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory (1979, 1995) , the macrosystem represents distal

PAGE 40

31 sources of contextual influence on the developing individual at the id eological level. That is, the macrosystem represents the ideological blueprint of norms and beliefs in the social environment that shape the content of interac tions at the more proximal settings, such as the family microsytem and the self-syste m. Cultural understandings of gender, race, ethnicity, and the social struct ure that determine life course options and patterns represent macrosystem influences that need to be exam ined in relation to developmental outcomes when conducting ecological research (B ronfenbrenner, 1979; Renn & Arnold, 2003). Furthermore, Bronfenbrenner (1995; Bronfenbr enner & Morris, 1998) suggested the need to study variables representing a time compone nt when conducting ecological research. In light of this suggestion, I examined in this ecologica l study relationships between career decision self-efficacy and the macrosys tem variables of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status and the chronosystem variables of age and year in college. Gender. Most researchers examining gender di fferences in career decision selfefficacy in college samples have consistently reported no differences in career decision self-efficacy scores between male and fema le students (Betz & Klein, 1996; Betz & Taylor, 2001; Betz, Hammond, & Multon, 200 5; Chung, 2002; Hargrove et al., 2002; Lindley, 2006; Luzzo, 1996; Taylor & Popma, 1990; Taylor & Betz, 1983). In the few studies where differences have been found (Gianakos, 2001; Robbins, 1985), higher career decision self-efficacy scores have b een reported for women. These findings are consistent with those in other areas of ach ievement in the university context in which researchers have reported, for example, that females when compared to males tend to show a greater sense of self-mastery, edu cational purpose, and educational involvement (Berzonsky et al., 1999; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000; Kracke, 1997). Also, in the career

PAGE 41

32 development realm, some researchers have found that women show greater involvement in career exploration activi ties (Kracke, 1997; Lucas, 1997) , higher achieved identity status scores (Lucas, 1997), a nd higher scores in the inform ational identity style scale, implying greater identity relevant exploration (Boyd et al., 2003). In short, although most researchers have not found gender differences in career decision self-efficacy in college students, in the few studies where gender differences are reported, greater career decision self-efficacy has been shown in women (Gianakos, 2001). Gianakos suggested that because wome n may be more aware of role conflicts between their careers and persona l lives, they may be more inclined to carefully explore career options and requirements and engage in career search activities more actively. This tendency may result in greater experience with career exploration ta sks and career related problem-solving, which may explain a tendency towards greater confidence in engaging in career-choice tasks (Gianakos, 2001). In conclusion, the findings showing gender equivalence in career decision self-efficacy scores are extensive (Betz & Klein, 1996; Betz & Taylor, 2001; Betz et al., 2005; Chung, 2002; Hargrove, 2002; Luzzo, 1996). But nonetheless, because in a few studies resear chers have found some gender differences in career decision self-efficacy, it is important to continue examin ing the relationship between gender and career decision self-efficacy. Moreover, in this research, in addition to examining a direct relationship between gender and career decision self-efficacy, the ro le of gender as a possi ble moderator of the relationship between perceive d parenting styles and caree r decision self-efficacy was investigated. That is, I examined the possibi lity that the strength and direction of relationships between perceive d parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy might

PAGE 42

33 show a different pattern for men and women. Several researchers have found that the relationship between familial predictors a nd career decision self-efficacy and other variables related to career decision-self-efficacy such as career indecision vary by gender (Betz & Klein, 1996; Betz & Taylor, 1983; Betz et al., 1996; Blustein et al., 1991; Ryan et al., 1996; Whiston, 1996; Whiston & Kelle r, 2004). For example, Whiston (1996) reported that some family factors such as organization and control in the family are significantly related to career indecision, but only among women. Blustein et al. likewise found that psychological separation and parent al attachment were related to women's tendency to foreclose, but this relations hip was not found among me n (Blustein et al., 1991). Ryan et al. (1996) also found a stronger relationship between secure attachment to parents and career search self-efficacy among women. These examples of gender differences in the pattern and strength of relationships between familial factors and outcomes of career development pointed out the possibility that when examining the relationship between perceive d parenting styles and caree r decision self-efficacy, gender might moderate the relationship between thes e familial and career process variables. The interactions between gender and parenting styles in rela tion to career decision selfefficacy were for this reason examined in this study. Ethnicity. Because ethnic minority populations are growing in numbers in American college campuses, it is necessary to include ethnicity as a macrosystem variable when examining developmental outcomes in college students (Chung, 2002; Gloria & Hird, 1999; Mau, 2000). Researchers interested in studyi ng college students' career decision self-efficacy have pointed out that an important limitation of most career decision self-efficacy research is the failure to provide information about the ethnic

PAGE 43

34 background of participants (C hung, 2002; Gloria & Hird, 1999; Hackett & Byars, 1996; Mau, 2000). Furthermore, various researchers ha ve noted researchersÂ’ failure to examine the applicability of findings on the devel opment of career decision self-efficacy to students from diverse sociocultural b ackgrounds (Chung, 2002; Gl oria & Hird, 1999; Hackett & Byars, 1996; Lindley, 2006; Luzzo, 1996; Mau, 2000). Moreover, researchers who have included th e variable of ethnicity in studies of career decision self-efficacy have reported inc onsistent results. Whereas some researchers have not found differences in career deci sion self-efficacy scores among the different minority student groups studied (Betz et al., 2005), other researchers have found differences in career decision self-efficacy among students from different cultures and ethnic backgrounds. For example, Mau (2000) reported lower career decision selfefficacy scores among Taiwanese students compared to American students. Furthermore, gender differences in career de cision self-efficacy scores that have not usually been found among American students have been shown to be more prevalent among Asian students (Mau, 2000). In addition, Betz and Taylor (2001) found that African American students reported higher career decision self-efficacy sc ores than Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian, and Native American students. Chung (2002) also found higher career decision self-efficacy scores among African American students wh en compared to Caucasian students (Chung, 2002). Conversely, Gloria and Hird (1999) found that Caucasian American students reported higher career decision self-efficacy scores than ethnic minority students. Also, according to Mau (2000), the relati onship between predictor and outcome variables and career decision self-efficacy may vary depending on students' cultural background. That is, ethnic background may act as a moderator of the relationships

PAGE 44

35 between predictor variables and career de cision self-efficacy. Specifically, researchers have found, for instance, that the positive achievement outcomes associated with authoritative parenting among middle class high school students of Caucasian origin did not generalize to populations of students fr om different ethnic groups (Park & Bauer, 2002; Steinberg et al., 1992; Steinberg et al., 1995). To examine the possibility of replicating these findings with college student s, I examined whether differences in the pattern and strength of relationships between parenting styles a nd career decision selfefficacy were moderated by students' ethnicity. In sum, ethnicity was included as a variable in this ecological study because it represents an important macrosystem variab le that must be examined when conducting research in college population due to the growing number of et hnic minority students attending American colleges and universitie s (Mau, 2000). In additi on, the inconsistency of findings in previous research examining et hnic group differences in relation to familial and career development variables points to th e need to continue examining the role of ethnicity in research such as the present one. Socioeconomic status . It has been suggested that re search examining ethnicity and psychological and achievement outcome s in youth tends to be confounded by socioeconomic status (SES) (Hackett & Byars, 1996; Spencer & Dornbusch, 1990). Furthermore, according to Schulenberg et al. ( 1984), the family's socioeconomic status is one of the most significant determinants of vocational outcomes in adolescents and young adults. Moreover, socioeconomic status is be lieved to play an important role in the relationship between parenting styles and adolescentsÂ’ a cademic achievement (Spera, 2005). To examine whether this suggestion applie s to career decision self-efficacy, and to

PAGE 45

36 avoid potential confounding of the results, the macrosystem va riable of SES was included in the model. Age and year in college . Research on college students' development suggests that as students progress through the college years they develop greater academic confidence and increasingly mature career decision-maki ng attitudes (Guerra & Braungart-Rieker, 1999; Strage & Brandt, 1999; Whiston & Kelle r, 2004). However, researchers examining the relationship between age and year in college and career decision self-efficacy in particular have only found significant but weak relationships in some studies (Luzzo, 1993) and no significant relationships between these variables and career decision selfefficacy in other studies (Bet z et al., 2005). Besides the importance of including age and year in college as variables representing th e chronosystem in this ecological study, the inconclusiveness of previous findings warra nts the inclusion of these variables in research of career decision self-efficacy. In light of previous research that i nvestigated the relati onship between these variables and academic achievement, the possibil ity that age and year in college moderate the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy was focused on in this research when examini ng the relationship between these chronosystem variables and career decision self-efficacy. Specifically, in a study of college studentsÂ’ adjustment and success, Strage and Bradt (1999) found that parental influences on academic outcomes, for example studentsÂ’ confidence in their achievement ability, attenuated for older students as they advan ced through the college y ears. Findings such as this one suggest that the relationships be tween perceived paren ting styles and career decision self-efficacy may also weaken in strength with age and as students advance

PAGE 46

37 through college. To explore this possibility, I hypothesized th at age and year in college moderated the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision selfefficacy. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to examine multiple familial, individual, socialcognitive, and contextual predictors of career decision self-efficacy in a research design based on an ecological perspective. The following questions were explored, while controlling, as appropriate, for peer autonomy support in career decisi ons, peer control in career decisions, the personality variables of neuroticism, co nscientiousness, and extraversion, self-esteem, identity styles, family conflict, family type, academic achievement (GPA), ability (SAT), and SES: 1. Is the relationship between parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy moderated by peer autonomy support, peer co ntrol, ethnicity, age, year in college, or gender? 2. If the relationship between parenting st yles and career decision self-efficacy is not moderated by peer autonomy support, peer c ontrol, ethnicity, age, year in college, or gender, then is career decision self-efficacy predicted by each maternal and paternal perceived parenting style? 3. Is career decision self-efficacy predicted by the contextual variables of family conflict, peer autonomy support, and peer control? 4. Is career decision self-efficacy predicted by the self-system (person) variables of achievement, ability, self-esteem, and pers onality (neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness)? 5. Is career decision self-efficacy predicted by the self-system (process) variables of identity styles (informational, normative, diffuse-avoidant)? Research Hypotheses The following research hypotheses for student s of college age were tested, while controlling for all the other variables in the model.

PAGE 47

38 Moderating Effects Hypotheses Hypothesis 1. Peer autonomy support m oderates the relationship between each perceived parenting style a nd career decision self-efficacy. Hypothesis 2. Peer control moderates the relationship between each perceived parenting style and career decision self-efficacy. Hypothesis 3. Ethnicity moderates th e relationship between each perceived parenting style and career decision self-efficacy. Hypothesis 4. Age moderates the relati onship between each perceived parenting style and career decision-self-efficacy. Hypothesis 5. Year in college moderate s the relationship between each perceived parenting style and career decision self-efficacy. Hypothesis 6. Gender moderates the relationship between each perceived parenting style and career decision self-efficacy. Hypotheses of Relationships If significant moderating effects (interacti ons) were not found after testing the first six hypotheses, then the followi ng hypotheses were tested: Hypothesis 7. Perceived mate rnal and paternal parenti ng styles are significantly related to career decision self-efficacy. Specifically, (a) authoritative mothering and authoritative fathering are positively related to career decision self-efficacy, (b) authoritarian fathering, authoritarian mother ing, permissive fathering, and permissive mothering are negatively related to career decision self-efficacy. Further, to investigate the questions addressing the pred ictive relationships between each individual, social-cognitive, and contex tual variable in the model and career decision-self efficacy, when all other vari ables in the model were controlled, the following hypotheses were tested. Hypothesis 8. Family conflict is nega tively related to career decision selfefficacy. Hypothesis 9. Peer autonomy support is po sitively related to career decision selfefficacy and peer control is negatively related to career decision self-efficacy. Hypothesis 10. Self-esteem, ability, and achievement are positively related to career decision self-efficacy.

PAGE 48

39 Hypothesis 11. Extraversion and conscienti ousness are positively related to career decision self-efficacy and neuroticism is negatively related to career decision selfefficacy. Hypothesis 12. Identity styles are re lated to career decision self-efficacy. Specifically, (a) an informational identity st yle is positively related to career decision self-efficacy and (b) both a normative and a diffuse-avoidant identity styles are negatively related to career decision self-efficacy. Significance of the Study Theoretical Significance In this study I examined the predictive role of individual, social-cognitive, and familial factors on the career decision self-efficacy of college students. A central focus of this research was the relationship between familial factors, specifically perceived parenting styles experienced by college student s during their formative years, and college students' career decision self-efficacy. Key to understanding this relationship was to examine social cognitive and contextual influe nces that moderate or also account for the relationship between perceive d parenting styles and car eer decision self-efficacy. I conducted this research from the perspectiv e of ecological theor y. This theoretical perspective has not been prev iously used to study the relationship between socialcognitive, contextual, and familial factors and career decision self-efficacy. Thus this research expands the applicability of Bronf enbrenner's (1979, 1995) ecological theory to this important area of human development. The influence of the family on career-decision making has been extensively researched from various theoretical perspectives. In this study, familial predictors of career decision self-efficacy were investigat ed through the theoretical framework of perceived parenting styles (Baumri nd, 1971, 1991; Buri, 1991; Steinberg, 2001). Perceived parenting styles have been recen tly acknowledged as influential in various

PAGE 49

40 dimensions of the socialization and developm ent of adolescents and young adults (Spera, 2005; Steinberg, 2001; Steinberg & Darling, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1995; Strage & Brandt, 1999). In light of this knowle dge, although the relationships between authoritative, authoritarian, a nd permissive perceived paren ting styles and career decision self-efficacy have not been previously inve stigated, it was expect ed that the positive outcomes that have been associated with authoritative parenting and young adults' development in American educational inst itutions, and the less positive outcomes associated with authoritarian parenting and pe rmissive parenting in educational contexts (Spera, 2005; Steinberg, 2001), w ould be found in relationship to the development of positive or negative career decision self-e fficacy beliefs in college students. It should be noted, however, that these hypot hesized relationships were expected in this research to be only characteristic of Caucasian students and not characteristic of students from other sociocultural or et hnic backgrounds. This qualification of the hypotheses follows from research findings derived from the study of the relationship between perceived parenting styles and academ ic achievement. That is, research on the relationship between parenting practices and academic achievement has shown that the positive academic outcomes associated with authoritative parenting in American educational institutions are only applicable to middle-cla ss, Caucasian students. Other patterns of relationships between parenting practices and academic achievement have been associated with other ethnic groups (Park & Bauer, 2002; Steinberg et al., 1992; Spera, 2005). For example, Asian-American students whose parents tend to be more authoritarian, according to the perceived parenting styles framework, do not seem to be negatively affected in terms of academic achievement by an authoritarian style of

PAGE 50

41 parenting, as has been reported in studies of predominantly Caucasian students (Park & Bauer, 2002; Steinberg et al., 1992). Likewise, African Amer ican students who perceive their parents as authoritative have been found to not fair better academically as a result of authoritative parenting, as has been shown in studies of predominantly middle-class Caucasian students, because non-academic oriented peers seem to offset this effect (Park & Bauer, 2002; Steinberg et al., 1992). In sum, by studying the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy from the perspective of ecological theory, as is the case in this research, it is possible to examine relations hips between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy as moderated by va rious contextual variables as suggested by researchers of the relationship between familial factors and academic achievement. This approach represents an important th eoretical and empirical contribution because contextual variables such as ethnic background, gender, or peer influences have tended to be excluded or studied in isolation in previ ous studies of familial predictors of career decision self-efficacy (Whiston, 2004). In conclusion, the theoretical significance of this dissertation lies in its expansion of the applicability of Bronfenbrenner's eco logical theory to the realm of career development and the development of career de cision self-efficacy in particular (Cook et al., 2002a, 2002b; Ferrari, 1998; Merrick, 1995; Vondracek et al., 1986; Young, 1983). Furthermore, this research allowed the investigation of the relationship between familial factors and career decision self-efficacy thr ough the perceived parenti ng styles theoretical framework (Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Buri, 1991; Steinberg, 2001). This theoretical perspective of familial influence has not been previously examined in relation to career

PAGE 51

42 development outcomes and career decision self -efficacy in particular. Thus, in this dissertation I expanded the applicability of noted theories in developmental psychology into the area of career development. Practical Significance Low career decision self-efficacy has been associated with vocational indecision, low academic motivation, increased attrition rates, high levels of anxiety, low career aspirations, problems with career exploratory behaviors, low career academic persistence, low career choice commitment, and inadequate coping strategies used when engaged in career exploration (Bandura et al., 2001; Chung, 2002; Gianakos, 1999, 2001; OÂ’Brien et al., 2000; Ryan et al., 1996; Whiston, 1996; Whiston & Keller, 2004). Because previous research suggests that negative outcomes are related to low career decision self-efficacy, the expansion of the knowledge base regarding variables rela ted to career decision selfefficacy that this study provides should offe r a first step in developing information valuable to career counselors, academic advi sors, parents, and thos e students seeking to overcome difficulties in the career decision-making process at American institutions of higher learning. In particular, additional knowledge of pare ntal influence in the development of career decision self-efficacy may point to the de sirability of testing the implementation of college career advising components and caree r development course components that include the examination of familial factors and studentsÂ’ confidence in career decisionmaking. Exposure to this information may give students awareness of how experiences in the home could have shaped core self-conceptions that affect their career search process and their beliefs about their ability to engage in this process (Lopez & Andrews, 1987; Ryan et al., 1996). Through these added compon ents, students who are undecided about

PAGE 52

43 their career may gain what Ryan et al. (1996) have referred to as the "cognitive and emotional scaffolding" (p. 88) necessary for the development of a successful approach to career-decision making. This information may be introduced to students through individual counseling, group counseling, care er decision-making wo rkshops, or career planning courses at the high school or college level (Spl ete & Freeman-George, 1985). Furthermore, parental education during the formative years that includes the provision of information about the relationship between perc eived parenting styles and adolescents and young adultsÂ’ confidence in thei r ability to engage in career decisionmaking may be valuable to parents who want their children to attain success in their academic and career choices. Awareness of speci fic parental practices that may have consequences for their childrenÂ’s career c hoices and college success while children are still living at home may prove beneficial to parents and ch ildren as parenting behaviors may be modified before a dolescents and young adults conf ront the process of career search.

PAGE 53

44 CHAPTER 2 METHOD Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate familial, individual, social-cognitive, and contextual predictors of career decision self-efficacy in a research design based on ecological theory. The main focus of this study was the relationship between college studentsÂ’ perceptions of parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy. These relationships were studied within an ecol ogical model that included person, process, context, and time variables. College students attending the University of Florida were surveyed to assess their career decision self-efficacy beliefs, their pe rceptions of the maternal and paternal parenting styles experienced during their forma tive years, their perceptions of conflict in their family of origin while growing up, their identity processi ng styles, their self-esteem, their personality tendencies (specifically conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism), and their perceptions of peer attitudes regarding thei r career decisions. In addition, participants provided demographic information about gender, age, year in college, major, family type, and socioeconomic status. They also provided information about their current grade point average and SAT scores. In this study it was hypothes ized that the relationship between college studentsÂ’ perceived parenting styles and career decisi on self-efficacy varied depending on gender, ethnicity, age, year in college , peer support, and peer contro l. To explore this hypothesis, this research was designed to test if th ese six variables moderated the relationship

PAGE 54

45 between perceived parenting styles and caree r decision self-efficacy in college students. Furthermore, this study was designed so that all relevant variab les not moderating the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career de cision self-efficacy could be examined in relation to career decision se lf-efficacy while controlling for all other variables in the model. In this chapter, I de scribe in detail the participants, procedures, and measures in this investigation. At the end of the chapter I also provide a brief description of the method of da ta analysis used in this study. Participants The sample for this study consisted of 413 students attending the University of Florida. Participants were recruited th rough the research participant pool in the Department of Educational Psychology and from undergraduate courses in the Departments of Romance Languages and Litera ture and Health and Human Performance. Participants were selected according to the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association (1992) and were a ssured anonymity to the extent permitted by law. Procedures Data collection was conducted through th e completion of a take-home self-report questionnaire that was returned to me in c oordination with instruct ors in the Departments of Educational Psychology, Romance Languages and Literature, and Health and Human Performance. The study was introduced as an investigation of car eer decision-making. Participants were told their responses will he lp counselors, advisors, teachers, mentors, parents, and students understa nd the needs of undergraduates engaging in the process of searching for a career.

PAGE 55

46 Measures Career Decision Self-Effcacy The Career Decision Self-E fficacy Scale–Short Form (CDSE-SF, Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996; Betz et al., 2005), which was used as the dependent variable in this study, is a short form of the CDSE (Taylor & Betz , 1983). The short form is a 25-item selfreport questionnaire designed to measure an individual's level of confidence in completing career decision-making tasks. The CDSE-SF has five 5-item scales (goal selection, gathering occupa tional information, problem solving, planning, and selfappraisal) based on the five competencies in Crites’s (1978) model of career maturity. However, because the five-factor structure ha s not been convincingly supported by factor analysis in construct validity studies of both the original CDSE and the CDSE-SF, some researchers have recommended that the 25-item scale be considered primarily a single measure of generalized caree r decision self-efficacy (Bet z & Taylor, 2001; Robbins, 1985; Taylor & Popma, 1990). Responses are indicated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ( no confidence at all ) to 5 ( complete confidence ) (Betz et al., 2005). A sample item is "How confident are you that you could select one occupation from a list of potential occupations you are considering.” Subscale scores for the CDSE-SF were obtained by summing the responses of five items for a maximum score of 25 each. The sum of subscale scores yields a total maximum scor e of 125, with higher scores representing higher levels of career decision self-efficacy. Betz et al. (2005) obtained Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from .73 to .83 for the subscales and .94 for the total score for th e scores of 1,832 participants. In their study a 10-point response scale was used. However, according to Betz and Taylor (2001) and

PAGE 56

47 Betz et al., comparable or highe r internal reliability has been reported in studies using the 25-item scale and a 5-point scale instead of a 10-point scale (Betz & Taylor, 2001). Therefore, a 5-point scale was used in this research. Extensive evidence of the validity of this CDSE-SF scale is re ported in Betz and Taylor (2001) . According to these researchers, va lidity estimates show a significant relationship between the CDSE-SF and measures of vocational indecision, a variable that has been shown to be one of the most cons istent and important correlates of career decision self-efficacy (Betz & Taylor, 2001). Sign ificant correlations ranging from .18 to .59 have been reported between CDSE scores and the Career Decision Scale scores (CDS, Osipow, 1987; Osipow, Carney, & Bara k, 1976) by several re searchers (Robbins, 1985; Taylor & Betz, 1983; Taylor & Popm a, 1990). In addition, as expected for evidence of construct validit y, researchers studying the re lationships between career decision self-efficacy and constructs reflecti ng a healthy personality, using the CDSE-SF, have found significant relationships between career decision self-efficacy and, for example, self-esteem ( r = .43 males, r =.39 in females), responsibility ( r =.47), hard work ( r = .36), and generalized self-efficacy ( r =.59 in males and .50 in females) (Betz & Taylor, 2001). Perceived Parenting Styles The Parental Authority Questionnaire (P AQ, Buri, 1991) is a 30-item questionnaire based on BaumrindÂ’s (1971, 1991) conception of pa rent authority in terms of parental responsiveness and demandingness. The origin al PAQ questionnaire consists of two forms (maternal and paternal) and is designed to measure six perceived parenting styles: authoritarian fathering, authoritarian moth ering, permissive fathering, permissive

PAGE 57

48 mothering, authoritative fathering and authorita tive mothering. Each scale in the original PAQ questionnaire is measured by 10 items. In this research a shortened version of the PAQ was used. Items for the reduced PAQ (PAQ-R) were selected on th e basis of factor analysis of the item responses to the original PAQ scale with a coll ege sample of 331 students who participated in a previous study using the original PAQ scale (Ribaden eira, unpublished data, 2003). In the shorter parenting styles questionnair e used in this study, responses to the items on the authoritative fathering, authoritative motheri ng, authoritarian father ing, and authoritarian mothering scales were each recorded on a 5-it em scale. Responses made to items on the permissive fathering and permissive mother ing scales were made on a 7-item scale. Sample items are “As I was growing up my mother did not allow me to question any decision that she had made (authoritarian), “As I was growing up my father consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational a nd objective ways” (autho ritative), “As I was growing up my mother seldom gave me exp ectations and guidelines for my behavior” (permissive) (Buri, 1991, pp. 113-114). Items were selected based on the highest factor loadings and corresponding equivalence of items between the parental and maternal scales. The final item selection and factor lo adings for the shortened version of the PAQ (PAQ-R) are shown in Table 2.1. Correlations fo r the scores of 331 participants between the scales in the original PAQ and the corr esponding scales in the shortened version of the PAQ (PAQ-R) used in this study are as follows: for permissive mothering ( r = .89, p < .01), permissive fathering ( r = .90, p < .01), authoritative mothering ( r = .96, p < .01), authoritative fathering ( r = .95, p < .01), authoritarian mothering ( r = .95, p < .01), authoritarian fathering ( r = .96, p < .01).

PAGE 58

49 For the original PAQ questionnaire, Bu ri (1991) obtained th e following Cronbach alpha coefficients for the scores of 185 pa rticipants: for permissive mothering (.75), authoritative mothering (.82), au thoritarian mothering (.85), permissive fathering (.74), authoritative fathering, (.85), a nd authoritarian fathering (.87). Also, in a test-retest reliability study conducted by Buri (1991), 30 female and 32 male college students completed the PAQ early in the semester, a nd of these students 29 female and 32 male students completed the PAQ 2 weeks later. Buri Â’s test-retest reliabil ity study yielded the following reliabilities: permi ssive mothering (.81), authoritative mothering (.78), authoritarian mothering (.86), permissive fathering (.77), au thoritative fath ering (.92), and authoritarian fathering (.85). For the res ponses of the 331 participants in Ribadeneira (2003) with the shorter version of the P AQ (PAQ-R), I obtained the following Cronbach alpha coefficients: permissive motheri ng (.70), authoritative mothering (.83), authoritarian mothering (.78), permissive fathering (.73), au thoritative fathering, (.83), and authoritarian fathering (.81). Buri (1991) reported evidence for discrimi nant and criterionrelated validity for participantsÂ’ scores on the PAQ. In his study of discriminant-related validity, the relationship between respondent sÂ’ scores on the three scal es was examined with 127 participants. As expected, mother's aut horitativeness was inversely related to authoritarian mothering ( r = .48, p < .0005) and not significantly related to mother's permissiveness ( r = .07, p < .10). Father's authoritativeness was inversely related to authoritarian fathering ( r = .52, p < .0005) and not significantly related to father's permissiveness ( r = .12, p <.10). Furthermore, moth er's authoritarianism and permissiveness were inversely related ( r = -.38, p < .0005). Likewise, father's

PAGE 59

50 authoritarianism and permissive ness were negatively related ( r = .50, p < .0005). In addition, as evidence for criter ion-related validity, Buri reported a significant positive relationship between parental authorit ativeness and pare ntal nurturance ( r = .56, p < .0005 for mothers and r = .68, p < .0005 for fathers), a significant negative relationship between parental authoritariani sm and parental nurturance ( r = .36, p < .0005 for mothers, and r = .53, p < .0005 for fathers), and no re lationship between parental permissiveness and nurturance ( r = .04, p < .10 for mothers and r = -.13, p < .10 for fathers). Family Conflict The Conflict Subscale of the Family Functioning Scale (FFS, Bloom, 1985; Bloom & Naar, 1994) is a 5-item self-report scale de signed to measure overt anger, aggression, and conflict among family members on a 4-point response scale of 1 ( very untrue for my family ), 2 ( fairly untrue for my family ), 3 ( fairly true for my family ), and 4 ( very true for my family ) (Bloom 1985; Bloom & Naar, 1994). Sample items include such statements as “We fought a lot in our family," and "Family members rarely cri ticized each other." Bloom obtained a .79 Cronbach alpha for the sc ores of 320 undergraduate participants, a .85 Cronbach alpha for the scores of 212 unde rgraduate participants, and a .76 Cronbach alpha for the scores of 191 adult participan ts for the Conflict subscale in three studies testing the validity of the complete FFS scal e. Further Bloom and Naar obtained a .70 Cronbach alpha coefficient for the scores of 117 participants and a .84 Cronbach alpha coefficient for the scores of 176 participan ts for the Conflict subscale in two studies testing the validity of a revi sion of the complete FFS scale. Bloom and Naar obtained a

PAGE 60

51 coefficient of .88 for the scores on the FFS of 148 of the 176 participants who retook the test 1 month later. As initial evidence of the convergent validity of the conflict subscale of the FFS scale, Bloom (1985) reported a high correlation ( r = .93) between the participantsÂ’ scores on the Conflict subscale of the FFS and the Conflict subscal e of the Family Environment Scale (FES, Moos & Moos, 1994) from wh ich the items of Bloom's FFS Conflict subscale were derived. In addi tion, Bloom conducted a discrimina nt validity study of the FFS in which 212 students were selected on the ba sis of their parents' marital status to test if their scores on the FFS would discriminate between these two groups. The Family Functioning scores of 133 students from intact families were compared to the Family Functioning scores of 79 students from divor ced families. Bloom reported a significant difference between these two groups for the C onflict subscale of th e FFS. In addition, Bloom and Naar conducted a factor analysis of the responses of a group of 117 undergraduate participants a nd obtained a one-factor soluti on for the Conflict subscale that accounted for 46.6% of the vari ance in the participantsÂ’ scores. Identity Styles The Revised Identity Style Inventory (IS I3; Berzonsky, 1992b) is a 40-item selfreport questionnaire designed to measure three identity proce ssing styles or orientations (informational, normative, and diffuse-avoi dant) and commitment. The informational scale is measured by 11 items. The normative scale is measured by 9 items. The diffuseavoidant scale is measured by 10 items. Th e commitment scale is measured by 10 items. In this study only the three identity processi ng style scales were used. Responses on a 5point Likert scale range from 1 ( not at all like me ) to 5 ( very much like me ). Items include

PAGE 61

52 such statements as “I'm not really thinki ng about my future now; it's a long way off" (diffuse-avoidant style); "I've spent a great deal of time thinking seriously about what I should do with my life" (informational style), and "I prefer to deal w ith situations where I can rely on social norms a nd standards" (normative styl e). Berzonsky (1997) reported Cronbach alpha coefficients for the scores of 618 participants on the informational, normative, and diffuse-avoidant subscales of .70, .64, and .76. Berzonsky also provided test-retest reliability coefficients for the scor es of 94 of these partic ipants (informational, r = .87; normative, r = .87; diffuse-avoidant, r = .83). To study the discriminant-related validity of the ISI3, Berzonsky (1992a) examined the relationship between the informational, no rmative, and diffuse-avoidant scales in a sample of 171 college undergraduates. As pr edicted, an informational identity style was negatively related to the diffu se-avoidant iden tity style ( r = .26, p < .01) and not significantly related to normative identity style scores ( r = -.02, p < . 01). Also as predicted, a diffuse-avoidant id entity style was negatively related to identity commitment ( r = .34, p < .01), and informational and normative style scores were positively related to identity commitment (informational, r = .39, p < .01; normative, r = .36, p < .01). As evidence for criterion-related validity, Berzonsky (1992a) reported a positive relationship between informational identi ty style and problem-focused coping ( r = .47, p < .01), seeking social support ( r = . 26, p < .01), and facilitative anxiety ( r = .17, p < .05). In addition, Berzonsky reported a negati ve relationship between an informational style and coping through wishful thinking ( r = -.18, p < .01), coping through distancing ( r = -.22, p < .01), and debilitative anxiety ( r = -.16, p < .05). Also as predicted, Berzonsky reported a negative relationship between a di ffuse-avoidant identity style and problem

PAGE 62

53 focused coping ( r = .17, p < .05) and a positive relations hip between a diffuse-avoidant identity style and coping through wishful thinking ( r = .39, p < .01) and coping through distancing ( r = .48, p < .01). No relationship between a diffuse-avoidant st yle and either facilitative ( r = .05, p <.01) or debilitative anxiety ( r = .10, p < .01) was found. Furthermore, normative scores were reported as unrelated to problem-focused coping ( r = .00, p < .01), positively related to coping through wishful thinking ( r = .28, p < .01), coping through distancing ( r = .34, p < .01) and debilitative anxiety ( r = .18, p < .01), and negatively related to facilitative anxiety ( r = .13, p < .05). In a factor analysis of participantsÂ’ scor es on the measures of identity styles and coping strategies, Berzonsky (1992a) reporte d the emergence of four factors that accounted for 68.4% of the variance. Factor I was labeled Diffused, Avoidant Approach and included positive loadings of the respondent sÂ’ scores for the diffuse-avoidant identity style, normative identity style, and wishfu l thinking, distancing, and tension reduction coping strategies. Factor II was labeled Problem-Focused Informational Approach . This factor included primarily positive loadings of scores on informational style, problemfocused coping, seeking social support, and te nsion reduction strate gies. Factor III was labeled Facilitative Anxiety and included positive loadi ngs of scores on facilitative anxiety reactions, and negative loading of scores on a debil itative anxiety Index. Factor IV, labeled Foreclosure , included positive loadings of a normative style and identity commitment. Berzonsky reported the relative i ndependence of these factors as further evidence of criterion-related validity.

PAGE 63

54 Self-Esteem The Single-Item Self-Esteem Scale (SISE , Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001) is a measure of self-esteem based on a single se lf-report item shown to serve as a useful and valid alternative to longer self-esteem m easures, such as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale (Robins et al., 2001). The SISE consists of one item: "I have high self-esteem" and is rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 ( not very true of me ) to 5 ( very true of me ). A higher score indicates higher global self-esteem . Robins et al. obtained a mean reliability estimate of .75 based on the scores of 508 unde rgraduate participants. This estimate was obtained by using the Heise procedure (Heise, 1969; Robins et al., 2001), which Robins et al. described as a method for obtaining inte rnal reliability of single item measures based on testing a pattern of auto-co rrelation at three different times. Robins et al. (2001) provided extensiv e evidence of convergent validity of respondentsÂ’ scores on the SISE and the Ro senberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE, Rosenberg, 1965), which is a well-validated and widely used measure of global self-esteem. For six assessment periods Robins et al. reported concurrent correlations ranging between r =.72 to r = .76 ( r =.89 to r = . 94 , after correcting for attenua tion) for the scores of 508 undergraduate participants on the SISE and RSE scales. Robins et al. also provided extensive significant convergent and discriminant validity for the scores on the SISE and RISE in relation to known correlates of globa l self-esteem such as self-enhancing bias (SISE , r = .28 , p < .01; RSE , r = .32 , p < .01), life satisfaction (SISE , r = .45, p < .01; RSE , r = .54 , p < .01), positive affect (SISE, r =. 53; RSE , r = .56, p < .01), social skills (SISE , r = .27, p < .01; RSE , r = .27, p < .01), neuroticism ( SISE , r = .57, p < .01; RSE , r = .70, p < .01), optimism (SISE , r =. 44, p < .01; RSE , r =. 48, p < .01), and shyness

PAGE 64

55 (SISE , r = .26, p < .01; RSE , r = .28 , p < .01) among others. In addition, as predicted, Robins et al. reported slightly higher self-esteem for men compared to women at every assessment period and for both measures ( SISE , Cohen's d = .26, p < .05; RSE , Cohen's d = .21, p < .05). Also as predicted, Robins et al. reported no significant correlations between scores on the SISE and RSE and socioeconomic status or age. Personality The Big Five Inventory (BFI , Benet-Martinez & John, 1998; John et al., 1991; John & Srivastava, 1999) is a 54-item self-report scale designed to measure the Big Five personality dimensions (Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism) using short phrases representing prototypical trai ts associated with the Big Five. Items are rated on a 5-point response scale, ranging from 1 ( disagree strongly ) to 5 ( agree strongly ) (John, 1991; John & Srivstava, 1999). E ach of the scales consists of 9 items, with the exception of openness, whic h has 18 items. In this research, only the Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Conscientious ness scales were used. Sample items for these scales include such stat ements as "Is outgoing, sociable " (Extraversion), "Worries a lot" (Neuroticism), and “Perseveres until the task is finished" (Conscientiousness). John and Srivastava (1999) obtained Cronbach al pha coefficients of .88 (Extraversion), .84 (Neuroticism), and .82 (Consci entiousness) for the scores of 462 particip ants on these scales. In a confirmatory factor an alysis conducted to test convergent and discriminant validity of the BFI and two other instrume nts measuring the Big Five (the NEO-FFI, Costa & McCrae, 1992, and the Trait Descri ptive Adjectives-TDA, Goldberg, 1992), John and Srivastava (1999) analyzed the res ponses of 462 participants and tested various

PAGE 65

56 confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models to estimate latent factors representing the Big Five. The standardized validity coefficients obtained from the CFA averaged .92 for the BFI, .87 for the TDA, and .79 for the NEO-FFI. John and Srivastava reported that all scales for the three instruments (a total of 15 scales) had substantial loadings on the expected Big Five factors (average loading of .87). Thus they suggested that, in general, the three instruments measure the same five late nt factors proposed by the Big Five personality model. Peer Control The Peer Control and Autonomy Support sc ale measures students' perceptions of peer attitudes regardi ng a student's career decision (Gua y et al., 2003). This scale is a 22item questionnaire adapted by Guay et al. fr om Pelletier's (1992) Perceptions of the Interpersonal Style Scale (PISS; translated fr om French to English for this study by P.T. Ashton). This scale is divide d into four subscales (Incom petence Feedback, Controlling Behaviors, Involvement, and Informational Feed back). Guay et al., used this scale to measure Peer Autonomy Support (by combining the Informational Feedback and Involvement subscales) and Peer Control ( by combining the Incompetence Feedback and the Controlling subscales). Guay et al. measured responses on a 7-point-Likert response scale, ranging from 1 ( does not correspond at all ) to 7 ( corresponds completely ). To clarify the response options, in this research the following 7-point scale was used, 1 ( not at all like my friends ), 2 ( very little like my friends ), 3 ( a little like my frie nds), 4 ( somewhat like my friends ), 5 ( like my friends ), 6 ( very much like my friends ), 7 ( exactly like my friends ). Sample items are “My friends give me useful information when I have trouble narrowing down my choice” (Informati onal Feedback), "My friends don’t seem

PAGE 66

57 to care" (Involvement), "My friendsÂ’ co mments consist of unhelpful criticisms" (Incompetence Feedback), "I feel that my friends impose their opinions on me" (Controlling Behaviors). Guay et al. obt ained Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging between .64 and .89 for the scores of 834 French Canadian students. Socioeconomic Status The SES of respondentsÂ’ parents was meas ured using HollingsheadÂ’s (1975) Four Factor Index (FFISS). The FFISS is a measure of socioeconomic status that consists of a composite score calculated from informa tion about parentsÂ’ education, occupation, gender, and marital status to determine a fa milyÂ’s social status. Specifically, the FFISS consists of the sum of two weighted scale scores, an occupationa l scale score and an education scale score. The FFISS composite score is computed by multiplying the occupational scale value by a we ight of 5 and the education scale value by a weight of 3. Information about marital status is used to determine when and if the occupation and education weighted scores should be averaged to obtain the total score (for example, when husband and wife are gainfully employe d the sum of the weighted occupation and education scores of husband and wife shoul d be summed and divi ded by two) or if alternative methods for calculati ng scores that are given in th e scoring manual need to be used depending on marital status, employment of one or both parent s, and gender of the head of household of a family if only one parent is employed (Hollingshead, 1975). To obtain occupation scale scores, occupations are assigned scores keyed to titles and codes presented in the scoring manual (Hollingshe ad, 1975). Occupation codes range from 1 (for example, farm laborers/menial work ) to 9 (for example, higher executives, proprietors of large businesses, and major pr ofessionals). Education scores range from 1

PAGE 67

58 (less than fifth grade) to 7 (graduate and professional trai ning). The Hollingshead Four Factor Index raw scores range from 8 to 66, with higher scores represent higher SES. As evidence of the reliability and va lidity of the scores on his measure, Hollingshead (1975) reported that the scores for occupational groups in the FFISS were highly correlated with occupa tional prestige scores deve loped by the National Opinion Center (NORC) ( r = .93). Furthermore, Hollingshead provided information of the validity of the occupational and educati on scales by showing in a study of 1970 census data the high correlation between years of schooling (education scale scores) and occupational scale scores fo r males and females (males, r = .83 , p < .00001; females, r = .85 , p < .00001), and occupational scale scores with income for males and females (males, r = .78 , p < .00001; females, r = .67 , p < .00001). Furthermore, in a validation study conducted by Gottfried (1985) with 130 chil dren (12 to 40 months of age) and their parents, the FFISS was found to correlate highly with two other widely used SES measures, the Revised Duncan Socioeconomic Index ( r = .79 , p < .001) and the Siegel Prestige Scale ( r = .73 , p < .001). In addition, Gottfried found the FFISS to be more highly correlated with the developmental st atus of young children in the study than the two other comparable measures of SES. Fo r example, Gottfried reported that the correlation between the FFISS and the McCarthy General Cognitive Index scores for participants at 42 months were higher ( r = .39 , p < .005) than the correlations between the McCarthy General Cognitive Index scores and Revised Duncan Socioeconomic Index scores ( r = 26 , p < .005), and higher than the correlat ions between the McCarthy General Cognitive Index scores and the Siegel Prestige scale scores ( r = .19 , p < .05) for this same group of children. In a more recent study where zero-order correlations between the

PAGE 68

59 FFISS and the Duncan Socioeconomic Index were reported, the FFISS was also found to correlate highly with the D uncan Socioeconomic Index ( r (322) = .89 , p < .001) (Bornstein, Hahn, Suwalsky, & Haynes 2003). Fi nally, according to various authors, the FFISS is one of the most widely used measures of socioeconomic status in research of developmental psychology (Bornstein et al., 2003; Ensminger & Fothergill, 2003; Gottfried, 1985). Despite mention of the need for a revision of this scale that includes new occupations and changes in relative st atus of occupations since 1975 (Mueller & Parcel, 1981), researchers who favor the use of the FFISS view it as comparatively useful and appropriate, particularly because it takes into account variations in family structure and gender of the head of household (Go ttfried, 1985), and because it represents a multidimensional composite index of SES that is adequate to use when information about SES is obtained from offspring reports instead of the parentsÂ’ (Ens minger & Fotherhill, 2003; Ensminger et al., 2000). Demographic Information Students responded to a set of questions requesting information about gender, ethnicity, year in college, age, major, and fa mily type. In addition they provided selfreported GPA and SAT scores. Data Analysis I conducted various statistical analyses. First, I determined the characteristics of the sample. Second, I calculated the internal reli ability (Cronbach alpha) of the respondentsÂ’ scores on the measures for this sample. Third, the correlations be tween the variables were examined. Next, I tested each hypothesis using genera l linear model regression procedures. To test Hypotheses 1 through 6 (see p. 51), I tested the interaction terms representing each of

PAGE 69

60 the hypothesized moderating variables. For the next series of hypotheses (7 through 12), I tested linear relationships betw een each predictor variable and the outcome variable of career decision self-efficacy, while controlling for all other variables in the model. The significance level for all analys es was set at an alpha leve l of .05. For each analysis, the data was inspected for multicollinearity, outli ers, and violation of regression assumptions (normality, homogeneity of variance, linearity).

PAGE 70

61 Table 2-1. Shortened Version of Parental Au thority Questionnaire (PAQ-R) Final Item Selection and Factor Loadings ( N = 331) Mother Items Factor Loadings Father Items Factor Loadings Authoritarian Mothering/Fathering New Scale Items (5 items) Even if her children didn't agree with her/him, my . . . (Buri, 1991, item 2) .695 .687 As I was growing up my mother/father did not allow me to question . . . (Buri, 1991, item 7) .638 .728 My mother/father has always felt that more force . . . (Buri, 1991, item 9) .724 .758 My mother/father felt that wise parents should teach . . . (Buri, 1991, item 12) .678 .755 As I was growing up I knew what my mother/father expected . . . (Buri, 1991, item 29) .710 .681 Authoritative Mothering/Fathering New Scale Items (5 items) As I was growing up, once family policy . . . (Buri, 1991, item 4) .716 .709 As I was growing up I knew what my mother/father expected . . . (Buri, 1991, item 11) .756 .778 As the children in my family were growing up, my . . . (Buri, 1991, item 15) .724 .771 My mother/father gave me direc tion . . . (Buri, 1991, item 23) .785 .747 As I was growing up, if my mother/father made a decision . . . (Buri, 1991, item 30) .727 .710 Permissive Mothering/Fathering New Scale Items (7 items) My mother/father has always felt that what children need is to be free . . . (Buri, 1991, item 6) .671 .614 As I was growing up my mother/father did not feel that I needed to obey rules . . . (Buri, 1991, item 10) .534 .563 As I was growing up my mother/f ather seldom . . . (Buri, 1991, item 13) .538 .555 Most of the time as I was growi ng up my mother/father did what the children . . . (Buri, 1991, item 14) .518 .515 As I was growing up my mother/fat her allowed me to decide most things . . . (Buri, 1991, item 19) .600 .601 As I was growing up my mother/fat her allowed me to form my own point of view . . . (Buri, 1991, item 24) .545 .510 As I was growing up my mother/father did not direct the behaviors . . . (Buri, 1991, item 28) .585 .610

PAGE 71

62 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS This study was designed to investigate indi vidual, social-cognitive, and contextual predictors of career decision self-efficacy gui ded by ecological theory. Primarily, the aim of this study was to determine if college st udentsÂ’ perceptions of the parenting styles experienced during their formative years pr edicted their career d ecision self-efficacy. Further, the variables of peer autonomy support in career deci sion, peer control in career decision, ethnicity, age, year in college, and gender were investigat ed as moderators of the relationship between perc eived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy. Each of these moderating relationships was ex amined while controlling for the contextual and individual difference variab les of family conflict, family type, identity styles, selfesteem, ability, achievement, and personality, which have been identified in previous research as theoretically and significantly related to career decision self-efficacy. Finally, where moderated effects were not significant, the relationship between all predictors in the proposed model and career decision self-efficacy were examined. This chapter provides a description of the statistical results of this investigation. First, I present a description of the characterist ics of the sample. Second, I include an examination of the suitability of the measur es used in the present research by providing Cronbach alpha reliability results for the respondentsÂ’ scores on each of the scales. Finally, I present the results of the statistical tests for each of the research hypotheses and summarize the results of the inspection of the data for the detection of multicollinearity,

PAGE 72

63 outliers, and violation of assumptions fo r conducting a regression analysis (normality, homogeneity of variance, and linearity). Characteristics of the Sample The participants were volunteers fr om undergraduate courses offered by the Departments of Educational Psychology, Roma nce Languages and Literature, and Health and Human Performance at the University of Florida. Students from a range of majors take these courses. Of the 413 students w ho completed the questionnaire packet, 283 were included in the analyses after case s with missing data were omitted by SPSS. Of the 283 participants included in the analysis, 232 were female (82%), and 51 were male (18%). Further, 194 identified th emselves as Caucasian (68.5%), 18 as African Americans (6.4%), 49 as Hispanic (17.3%), 12 as Asian (4.2%), and 10 identified other as their ethnic group (3.5%). Of the 283 st udents included in the analysis, 37 students were freshman (13.1%), 118 sophomores (41.7%), 82 juniors (28.9%), 44 seniors (15.5%), and 2 identified their year in college as other (0.7%). The mean age of participants includ ed in the analysis was 19.8 years ( SD = 1.65). The age range of participants included in the analysis was from 17 to 32, but only two participants included in the analysis re ported ages above 25. The mean GPA was 3.45 ( SD = .43), and the mean of the SAT total score was 1,206 ( SD = 129.5). The mean career decision self-efficacy score for this sample was 98.0 ( SD = 12.2). Scores for the CDSE ranged between 58 and 125. The mean and standard deviations for all scale scores are shown in Table 3-1. A correlation matrix for all the variables is displayed in Table 3-2. Most of the significant correlations were small. With rega rd to career decision self-efficacy, the most notable significant relationship was with conscientiousness ( r = .30). A number of small

PAGE 73

64 significant correlations were found betw een career decision self-efficacy and authoritative parenting (a uthoritative fathering , r = .20; authoritative mothering, r = .18), with identity styles (informational identity style, r = .24; normative identity style, r = .22; diffuse-avoidant identity style, r = -.17), with self-esteem ( r = .28), with peer autonomy support ( r = .24), with peer control (r = -.20), with extraversion ( r = .18), and with neuroticism ( r = -.24). A few moderate correlatio ns are shown in the matrix: positive correlations between conscientious ness and two identity styles (normative identity style, r = .30 and diffuse-avoida nt identity style, r = -.49), negative correlations of neuroticism with self-esteem (r = -.49) and with extraversion ( r = -.28), and intercorrelations among the pare nting variables, specifically a negative correlation of authoritarian fathering with permissive fathering (r = -.43), negative correlations of authoritarian mothering with authoritative mothering ( r = -.32) and with permissive mothering ( r = -.50), and positive correlations of authoritarian mothering with authoritarian fathering ( r = .41), and of permissive mother ing with permissive fathering ( r = .38). Reliability of the Scales I calculated Cronbach alpha coefficients for the respondentsÂ’ scores on all the scales used in this research (see Table 3-3). All of the Cronbach reliability estimates were above .70 with the exception of the permissi ve mothering scale and the informational identity style scale, which had Cronbach alpha reliability estimates of .68 and .64 respectively. Tests of Hypotheses Following are the results for tests of the hypotheses. In the first six hypotheses I examined the moderating effect of peer autonomy support in career decision-making,

PAGE 74

65 peer control in career decision making, ethnic ity, age, year in college, and gender on the relationship between perceive d parenting styles and caree r decision self-efficacy in college students. Hypotheses 7 to 12 were ex amined in cases where moderating effects were not found when testing the first six hypotheses. For these analyses, I inspected the data fo r multicollinearity, presence of outliers, and violation of assumptions for con ducting a regression analysis (normality, homogeneity of variance, linearity). To test for multicollinearity, I examined tolerance (TOL) and variance inflation factor (VIF) st atistics for each variable. No problematic multicollinearity was noted. Further, examination of studentized residuals and CookÂ’s distance statistics showed evidence of one outlier with an extreme studentized residual value (-3.03). Based on a careful examination of this case, data analysis was conducted with the scores of this student deleted. In addition, residual plots we re used to check for violations of the assumptions of normality a nd homogeneity of variance. Lastly, linearity was checked by examining scatterplots of each predictor variable and the criterion (CDSE). Violations of these assumptions we re not clearly evident or obvious for these data. Tests for Interactions (Moderating Effects) Hypothesis 1 . Peer autonomy support in caree r decision making moderates the relationship between each perceived parenti ng style and career decision self-efficacy. The general linear model (GLM) was used to examine if peer autonomy support moderated the relationship between percei ved authoritarian mothering, perceived authoritarian fathering, perceived authorit ative mothering, per ceived authoritative fathering, perceived permissive mothering, and perceived perm issive fathering and career decision self-efficacy in college students, whil e controlling for all other variables in the

PAGE 75

66 model. Specifically, the GLM analysis invol ved testing interactions between peer autonomy support and each of the perceived pare nting styles. The summary results of this analysis are displayed in Table 3-4. None of the six interactions between peer autonomy support in career decisions a nd perceived parenting styles was significantly different from zero after making Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni correction, alpha 0.5/6 = 0.0083), indicating th at peer autonomy support in career decision making did not moderate the relatio nship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy. Hypothesis 2 . Peer control in career decisi on-making moderates the relationship between each perceived parenting styl e and career decision self-efficacy. A GLM analysis testing the interaction between peer control in career decision making and each of the perceived parenting styles was conducted to examine if peer control moderated the relationship between pe rceived authoritarian mothering, perceived authoritarian fathering, perceived authorit ative mothering, per ceived authoritative fathering, perceived permissive mothering, and perceived perm issive fathering and career decision self-efficacy in college students, whil e controlling for all other variables in the model. The summary results of this an alysis are displayed in Table 3-5. An inspection of these results, after making Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons, reveals that the interaction betw een peer control and permissive mothering, F (1, 239) = 7.25 , p = .004, was significant. This result indicates that peer control moderated the relationship between perceived permissive mothering and career decision self-efficacy. Specifically, after conducting an an alysis of the interaction by calculating the slope of the relationships between permissive mother ing and career decision self-

PAGE 76

67 efficacy for low (10), medium (25), and high (4 0) values of peer control, the following results were found with the slope indicated in parentheses: (a) permissive mothering was positively related to career de cision self-efficacy when peer control was low (.65); (b) permissive mothering was less strongly positiv ely related to career decision self-efficacy when peer control was medium (.12); a nd (c) permissive mothering was negatively related to career decision se lf-efficacy when peer control was high (.40). Scores on the peer control scale for the sample included in the analysis ranged from 8 to 42. Hypothesis 3 . Ethnicity moderates the relatio nship between each perceived parenting style and career decision self-efficacy. GLM was used to examine if ethnicity m oderated the relationship between the six perceived parenting styles and career decisi on self-efficacy while controlling for all the other variables in the model. I tested the in teractions between ethni city and six perceived parenting styles. The results of this analys is are shown in Table 3-6. None of the six interactions between ethnicity and perceived parenting styles was significantly different from zero when Bonferroni corrections were made for multiple comparisons, indicating that ethnicity did not have a moderating ro le in the relationship between perceived parenting styles and car eer decision self-efficacy. Hypothesis 4 . Age moderates the relationship between each perceived parenting style and career decision self-efficacy. GLM was used to examine if age was a m oderator of the relationship between the six perceived parenting styles a nd career decision self-efficac y, with all othe r variables in the model controlled. I tested the interac tion between studentsÂ’ age and each of the perceived parenting styles. Tabl e 3-7 shows the results of this analysis . None of the six

PAGE 77

68 interaction terms between age and perceived pa renting styles was si gnificantly different from zero when Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were made, indicating that age did not moderate the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy. Hypothesis 5. Year in college moderates the relationship between each perceived parenting style and career decision self-efficacy. GLM was used to examine if year in co llege (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior) moderated the relationship between perceive d parenting style and career decision selfefficacy when all other variables in the mode l were controlled. I tested the interaction between participant studentsÂ’ year in college and each of the six perceived parenting styles. Table 3-8 shows the results of this analysis. None of the six interaction terms between year in college and perceived parent ing styles was signifi cantly different from zero after making Bonferroni corr ections for multiple comparisons, indicating that year in college did not moderate the relationship betw een perceived parenti ng styles and career decision self-efficacy. Hypothesis 6 . Gender moderates the relationship between each perceived parenting style and career decision self-efficacy. GLM was used to examine if gender m oderated the relationship between each perceived parenting style and career decision se lf-efficacy with all other variables in the model controlled. I tested the interactions between gender and each of the six perceived parenting styles. Table 3-9 shows the results of this analysis. None of the six interactions between gender and perceived parenting styles was significantly different from zero after making Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons, indicating that gender did not

PAGE 78

69 moderate the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision selfefficacy. Summary of Results for Tests of Moderation Tests of the interactions to investigate hypothesize d moderated relationships between parenting styles and career decisi on self-efficacy indicated that only the relationship between perceive d permissive mothering and career decision self-efficacy was moderated by peer control in career de cision-making. These fi ndings show that the relationship between perceive d permissive mothering and career decision self-efficacy varies depending on peer control. Tests of Hypothesis 7 Through 11 Table 3-10 shows the results of the GLM an alysis that tested six hypotheses about relationships between all variables in the model not accounted for in the analysis of interactions. The unstandardize d regression coefficients (B), the standard error of the unstandardized regression coefficients, and th e standardized regression coefficients (ß) for this analysis are presented in Table 3-11. Th is analysis includes a ll the variables in the proposed model and the inter action between peer contro l in career decisions and permissive mothering that was significant in the previous analyses of moderated effects. The p -values for the variables that have a significant interaction in the model are omitted in these tables. It should be noted that when the model wa s reduced to include only the significant interaction, this inte raction was no longer significan t, meaning this interaction is probably significant but not strong and thus only tentatively supported. Hypothesis 7 . Perceived maternal and paternal parenting styles are significantly related to career deci sion self-efficacy.

PAGE 79

70 To test this hypothesis, the following predicted relationships were examined while all other variables in the model were controlle d: (a) authoritative fathering is positively related to career decision self-efficacy; (b) authoritative mothering is positively related to career decision self-efficacy; (c) permissive fathering is negatively related to career decision self-efficacy; (d) authoritarian fatheri ng is negatively related to career decision self-efficacy; (e) authoritarian mothering is negatively related to career decision selfefficacy. This analysis only included these five relationships. The results for tests of the relationship between permissive mothering and career decision self-efficacy were examined as moderated by peer control when testing Hypothesis 2. An inspection of Table 3-10 indicates that after controlling for all the variables in the proposed model, authoritative fathering was, as predicted, positive and significantly related to career d ecision self-efficacy, F (1, 244) = 3.81, p = .026. The relationship between authoritative mothering and career de cision self-efficacy with all other variables in the model controlled was not significant. The relati onship between permissive fathering and career decision self-efficacy with all other variables in the model controlled was not significant. The rela tionships between authoritaria n fathering and authoritarian mothering and career decision self-efficacy with all other vari ables in the model controlled were not significant. These results indicate that of the parenting styles not moderated by peer control, onl y authoritative fathering was significantly related to career decision self-efficacy. Table 3-11 shows the regr ession coefficients for this analysis. Hypothesis 8. Family conflict is negatively relate d to career decision self-efficacy.

PAGE 80

71 An inspection of Tables 3-11 and 3-12 show s that the relationship between family conflict and career decision self-efficacy was not significantly different from zero when all other variables in the mode l were controlled. Thus, this h ypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis 9 . Peer autonomy support is positive ly related and peer control is negatively related to career decision self-efficacy. An inspection of Tables 3-11 and 3-12 re veals that the regression coefficient for peer autonomy support was positive but did not differ significantly from zero. Thus, the hypothesized relationship betw een peer autonomy support and career decision selfefficacy was not supported when all other variab les in the model were controlled. As was previously reported, peer control moderated th e relationship between parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy. A linear relati onship between peer control and career decision self-efficacy was not found. Hypothesis 10. Self-esteem, ability, and achievement are positively related to career decision self-efficacy. An examination of Tables 3-11 and 3-12 re veals that, when all other variables in the model were controlled, the relationship between self-esteem and career decision selfefficacy was positive but not significantly different from zero. The relationship between ability (SAT) and career decision self-efficacy was positive but not significantly different from zero. Furthermore, the hypothesized positive relationship between achievement (GPA) and career decision se lf-efficacy was not supported. Hypothesis 11 . Extraversion and conscientiousness are positively related to career decision self-efficacy, and neuroticism is ne gatively related to career decision selfefficacy.

PAGE 81

72 An inspection of the results in Tables 3-11 and 3-12 shows that for the personality variables examined, only the positive relationship between conscientiousness and career decision self-efficacy was signifi cantly different from zero, F (1, 244) = 6.39, p = .006, when all other variables in the model were controlled. The relationship between extraversion and career decision self efficacy with all other variables in the model controlled was positive but not significantly different from zero. The relationship between neuroticism and career decision self -efficacy with all other variables in the model controlled was negative but not significantly different from zero. Hypothesis 12 . Identity styles are related to career decision self-efficacy. Specifically it was hypothesized that (a) an informational identity style is positively related to career decision se lf-efficacy; (b) a normative identity style is negatively related to career decision self-efficacy; and (c) a di ffuse-avoidant identity style is negatively related to career d ecision self-efficacy. An inspection of Tables 3-11 and 3-12 s hows that as hypothesized, when all other variables in the model were controlled, an informational identity style was significantly and positively related to career decision self-efficacy, F (1, 244) = 6.79, p = .005. The hypothesized negative relationship between a no rmative identity style and career decision self-efficacy was not supported. As predicted, the relationship between a diffuse-avoidant identity style and career decision self-efficac y, with all other vari ables in the model controlled, was negativ e and significant, F (1, 244) = 2.74, p = .049. Summary of Results for Tests of Relationships Tests of relationships between the vari ables in the proposed model and career decision self-efficacy reveal that perceived authoritative fathering, conscientiousness, an informational identity style, and a diffuse -avoidant identity style were significant

PAGE 82

73 predictors of career decision self-efficacy in co llege students, when all the other variables included in the model were controlled . Finally, although no hypotheses about the relationship between ethnicity, gender, age, ye ar in college, family type, and SES were proposed, an inspection of Table 3-10 reveal s no significant relationships between these demographic variables and car eer decision self-efficacy.

PAGE 83

74 Table 3-1. Means and Standard Deviati ons for All Variables in the Model ( N = 283) Variable M SD Career decision self-efficacy 98.04 12.15 Authoritarian mothering 14.37 4.05 Authoritative mothering 19.27 3.79 Permissive mothering 17.23 4.19 Authoritarian fathering 15.69 4.61 Authoritative fathering 17.83 4.27 Permissive fathering 17.50 4.67 Informational IS 39.93 5.21 Normative IS 31.46 5.44 Diffuse-avoidant IS 25.47 5.95 Extraversion 31.24 6.72 Conscientiousness 34.44 5.73 Neuroticism 27.64 6.62 Peer autonomy support 70.18 15.03 Peer control 16.79 6.61 Family Conflict 10.95 3.65 Self-esteem 3.69 0.96 Socioeconomic status 47.12 10.17 Age 19.83 1.65 GPA 3.44 0.43 SAT 1205.87 129.52

PAGE 84

75Table 3-2. Correlation Matrix for All Variables in the Model ( N = 283) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Career decision self-efficacy __ 2 Authoritarian mothering -.01 __ 3 Authoritative mothering .18** -.32** __ 4 Permissive mothering -.01 -.50** .10* __ 5 Authoritarian fathering -.04 .41** .00 -.13** __ 6 Authoritative fathering .20** -.01 .27**-.08 -.27** __ 7 Permissive fathering -.01 -.12* -.14** .38**-.43** .10* __ 8 Informational IS .24** .05 .10 .08 .03 .14** .14** __ 9 Normative IS .22** .16** .29**-.19** .12* .22**-.07 .09 __ 10 Diffuse-avoidant IS -.17**-.01 -.04 .19** .03 .02 .13* -.14** -.04 __ 11 Family conflict -.06 .18**-.28** .01 .23**-.21** -.01 .03 -.14** .07 12 Self-esteem .28** -.07 .21** .02 .01 .14** .03 .21** .15** .04 13 Extraversion .18** .08 .04 -.05 .00 .16** .01 .12* .11* -.09 14 Conscientiousness .30** -.09 .26**-.05 -.04 .07 -.07 .20** .29**-.49** 15 Neuroticism -.24**-.02 -.16** .07 -.02 -.12* .01 -.09 -.08 -.05 16 Peer autonomy support .24** .07 .22**-.15** -.02 .25**-.08 .20** .29**-.13* 17 Peer control -.20** .04 -.02 .11* .10 -.02 .06 -.01 .01 .22** 18 AGE .08 .02 -.01 .14** .06 -.04 -.01 .09 -.17** -.02 19 GPA -.02 -.17** .12* .09 -.08 .03 -.02 .10* .07 -.14** 20 SAT -.04 -.17** -.09 .08 -.11* .00 -.01 -.02 -.19** -.06 21 Socioeconomic status .06 -.10* .07 -.03 -.16** .22** .02 -.01 -.00 .01

PAGE 85

76Table 3-2. (Continued). 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 Career decision self-efficacy 2 Authoritarian mothering 3 Authoritative mothering 4 Permissive mothering 5 Authoritarian fathering 6 Authoritative fathering 7 Permissive fathering 8 Informational IS 9 Normative IS 10 Diffuse-avoidant IS 11 Family conflict __ 12 Self-esteem -.10* __ 13 Extraversion .04 .26** __ 14 Conscientiousness -.16** .18** .10 __ 15 Neuroticism .15**-.49** -.28** -.20** __ 16 Peer autonomy support -.13** .21** .23** .15**-.11* __ 17 Peer control .08 -.10* .02 -.20** -.03 -.28** __ 18 AGE -.04 .06 -.02 .06 -.15** .07 -.09 __ 19 GPA -.01 .09 .01 .27** .00 .01 -.12* -.06 __ 20 SAT -.05 -.02 -.06 -.07 .01 -.13 * .00 -.10 .26** __ 21 Socioeconomic status -.12* .04 .00 .02 -.04 .02 -.01 -.03 .13* .19**__ * p < .05. ** p < .01.

PAGE 86

77 Table 3-3. Internal Consistency for the Scale Scores on All Variables ( N = 413) Measure Cronbach alpha # of items N CDSE-SF total score .91 25 401 PAQ-Authoritarian mothering .75 5 412 PAQ-Authoritative mothering .80 5 409 PAQ-Permissive mothering .68 7 408 PAQ-Authoritarian fathering .81 7 406 PAQ-Authoritative fathering .83 5 405 PAQ-Permissive fathering .74 7 405 ISI3-Informational IS .64 11 408 ISI3-Normative IS .72 9 408 ISI3-Diffuse-avoidant IS .76 10 409 BFI-Extraversion .84 9 411 BFI-Conscientiousness .80 9 411 BFINeuroticism .84 9 410 Peer autonomy support .92 14 408 Peer control .78 8 409 FFS-Conflict .81 5 402

PAGE 87

78 Table 3-4. Summary of GLM Analysis of th e Moderating Effect of Peer Autonomy Support on the Relationships Between Per ceived Parenting Styles and Career Decision Self-Efficacy, with All Other Variables in the Model Controlled Source df F p Gender 1 0.19 .661 Ethnicity 4 1.80 .129 Year in college 4 1.88 .115 Family type 8 1.08 .382 Age 1 0.03 .858 GPA 1 3.11 .960 SAT 1 0.06 .403 SES 1 0.65 .421 Informational IS 1 5.23 .012 Normative IS 1 5.27 .989 Diffuse-avoidant IS 1 2.69 .051 Authoritarian mothering 1 0.65 .211 Authoritative mothering 1 0.00 .483 Permissive mothering 1 0.34 .279 Authoritarian fathering 1 0.00 .524 Authoritative fathering 1 0.77 .810 Permissive fathering 1 0.90 .828 Family conflict 1 1.22 .865 Extraversion 1 1.37 .122 Conscientiousness 1 6.34 .006 Neuroticism 1 0.15 .348 Peer autonomy support 1 0.53 .766 Peer control 1 5.58 .009 Self-esteem 1 3.43 .032 Peer Autonomy Support x Authoritarian Mothering 1 0.86 .823 Peer Autonomy Support x Authoritative Mothering 1 .007 .533 Peer Autonomy Support x Permissive Mothering 1 0.98 .839 Peer Autonomy Support x Authoritarian Fathering 1 0.02 .443 Peer Autonomy Support x Authoritative Fathering 1 1.57 .106 Peer Autonomy Support x Permissive Fathering 1 1.42 .117

PAGE 88

79 Table 3-5. Summary of GLM Analysis of the Moderating Effect of Peer Control on the Relationships Between Perceived Paren ting Styles and Career Decision SelfEfficacy, with All Other Variab les in the Model Controlled Source df F p Gender 1 1.12 .289 Ethnicity 4 2.26 .063 Year in college 4 2.03 .091 Family type 8 1.35 .219 Age 1 0.09 .755 GPA 1 3.72 .972 SAT 1 0.01 .458 SES 1 1.11 .293 Informational IS 1 7.37 .004 Normative IS 1 5.48 .990 Diffuse-avoidant IS 1 2.01 .078 Authoritarian mothering 1 5.91 .992 Authoritative mothering 1 0.28 .297 Permissive mothering 1 10.51 .990 Authoritarian fathering 1 3.39 .033 Authoritative fathering 1 3.34 .039 Permissive fathering 1 4.20 .021 Family conflict 1 2.32 .935 Extraversion 1 1.10 .148 Conscientiousness 1 5.85 .008 Neuroticism 1 0.26 .305 Peer autonomy support 1 0.63 .215 Peer control 1 2.05 .923 Self-esteem 1 2.73 .050 Peer Control x Authoritarian Mothering 1 5.57 .009 Peer Control x Authoritative Mothering 1 0.38 .539 Peer Control x Permissive Mothering 1 7.26 .004 Peer Control x Authoritarian Fathering 1 3.04 .958 Peer Control x Authoritative Fathering 1 1.31 .253 Peer Control x Permissive Fathering 1 2.84 .953

PAGE 89

80 Table 3-6. Summary of GLM Analyses of th e Moderating Effect of Ethnicity on the Relationships Between Perceived Paren ting Styles and Career Decision SelfEfficacy, with All Other Variab les in the Model Controlled Source df F p Gender 1 0.54 .460 Ethnicity 4 0.77 .544 Year in college 4 1.92 .107 Family type 8 0.71 .680 Age 1 0.04 .846 GPA 1 2.65 .948 SAT 1 0.04 .425 SES 1 1.94 .165 Informational IS 1 5.49 .010 Normative IS 1 5.29 .989 Diffuse-avoidant IS 1 3.45 .032 Authoritarian mothering 1 0.21 .091 Authoritative mothering 1 1.41 .788 Permissive mothering 1 0.00 .236 Authoritarian fathering 1 0.66 .670 Authoritative fathering 1 2.57 .349 Permissive fathering 1 0.49 .370 Family conflict 1 2.84 .953 Extraversion 1 1.08 .150 Conscientiousness 1 4.69 .015 Neuroticism 1 0.66 .208 Peer autonomy support 1 0.34 .281 Peer control 1 6.13 .007 Self-esteem 1 2.40 .062 Ethnicity x Authoritarian Mothering 4 0.71 .585 Ethnicity x Authoritative Mothering 4 0.49 .741 Ethnicity x Permissive Mothering 4 1.32 .265 Ethnicity x Authoritarian Fathering 4 0.43 .786 Ethnicity x Authoritative Fathering 4 0.40 .807 Ethnicity x Permissive Fathering 4 0.41 .801

PAGE 90

81 Table 3-7. Summary of GLM Analysis of the Moderating Effect of Age on the Relationships Between Perceived Paren ting Styles and Career Decision SelfEfficacy, with All Other Variab les in the Model Controlled Source df F p Gender 1 0.32 .572 Ethnicity 4 2.02 .093 Year in college 4 2.20 .070 Family type 8 0.93 .496 Age 1 0.05 .833 GPA 1 3.08 .959 SAT 1 0.01 .455 SES 1 1.02 .313 Informational IS 1 7.43 .004 Normative IS 1 5.39 .989 Diffuse-avoidant IS 1 2.62 .053 Authoritarian mothering 1 2.06 .076 Authoritative mothering 1 3.65 .971 Permissive mothering 1 0.31 .288 Authoritarian fathering 1 2.74 .950 Authoritative fathering 1 2.74 .049 Permissive fathering 1 0.16 .656 Family conflict 1 1.86 .913 Extraversion 1 1.43 .116 Conscientiousness 1 7.34 .004 Neuroticism 1 0.41 .261 Peer autonomy support 1 0.32 .285 Peer control 1 5.32 .011 Self-esteem 1 2.60 .054 Age x Authoritarian Mothering 1 2.18 .929 Age x Authoritative Mothering 1 3.62 .029 Age x Permissive Mothering 1 0.53 .766 Age x Authoritarian Fathering 1 2.82 .047 Age x Authoritative Fathering 1 2.39 .938 Age x Permissive Fathering 1 0.23 .315

PAGE 91

82 Table 3-8. Summary of GLM Analysis of the Moderating Effect of Year in College on the Relationships Between Perceived Pa renting Styles and Career Decision Self-Efficacy, with All Other Vari ables in the Model Controlled Source df F p Gender 1 0.05 .832 Ethnicity 4 2.08 .084 Year in college 3 0.84 .475 Family type 8 0.59 .787 Age 1 0.08 .778 GPA 1 5.62 .990 SAT 1 0.33 .282 SES 1 0.34 .562 Informational IS 1 8.22 .003 Normative IS 1 2.71 .949 Diffuse-avoidant IS 1 2.05 .076 Authoritarian mothering 1 1.16 .981 Authoritative mothering 1 0.61 .100 Permissive mothering 1 2.12 .941 Authoritarian fathering 1 1.07 .055 Authoritative fathering 1 0.88 .738 Permissive fathering 1 0.39 .324 Family conflict 1 1.37 .879 Extraversion 1 2.00 .079 Conscientiousness 1 7.62 .003 Neuroticism 1 0.34 .279 Peer autonomy support 1 0.29 .295 Peer control 1 5.05 .013 Self-Esteem 1 2.43 .060 Year in College x Authoritarian Mothering 3 3.03 .030 Year in College x Authoritative Mothering 3 1.16 .327 Year in College x Permissive Mothering 3 0.74 .531 Year in College x Authoritarian Fathering 3 1.65 .178 Year in College x Authoritative Fathering 3 1.53 .207 Year in College x Permissive Fathering 3 0.42 .737

PAGE 92

83 Table 3-9. Summary of GLM Analysis of the Moderating Effect of Gender on the Relationships Between Perceived Paren ting Styles and Career Decision SelfEfficacy, with All Other Variab les in the Model Controlled Source df F p Gender 1 0.74 .391 Ethnicity 4 1.84 .121 Year in college 4 2.21 .069 Family type 8 0.88 .531 Age 1 0.22 .643 GPA 1 3.25 .964 SAT 1 0.17 .338 SES 1 0.79 .374 Informational IS 1 6.09 .007 Normative IS 1 5.07 .988 Diffuse-avoidant IS 1 3.01 .042 Authoritarian mothering 1 0.02 .271 Authoritative mothering 1 0.14 .661 Permissive mothering 1 0.01 .274 Authoritarian fathering 1 0.25 .789 Authoritative fathering 1 0.59 .431 Permissive fathering 1 0.16 .515 Family conflict 1 1.02 .843 Extraversion 1 0.71 .201 Conscientiousness 1 5.76 .008 Neuroticism 1 0.47 .247 Peer autonomy support 1 0.54 .233 Peer control 1 4.63 .016 Self-esteem 1 2.26 .067 Gender x Authoritarian Mothering 1 0.91 .342 Gender x Authoritative Mothering 1 0.14 .708 Gender x Permissive Mothering 1 1.58 .209 Gender x Authoritarian Fathering 1 1.00 .318 Gender x Authoritative Fathering 1 0.21 .647 Gender x Permissive Fathering 1 0.23 .635

PAGE 93

84 Table 3-10. Summary of GLM Anal ysis for Predictors of Career Decision Self-Efficacy, with All Other Variables in the Model Controlled ( N = 283) Source df F p Gender 1 0.34 .558 Ethnicity 4 2.07 .085 Class 4 2.09 .082 Family type 8 0.97 .459 Age 1 0.00 .997 GPA 1 3.01 .958 SAT 1 0.06 .405 SES 1 1.13 .289 Informational IS 1 6.79 .005 Normative IS 1 5.65 .991 Diffuse-avoidant IS 1 2.74 .049 Authoritarian mothering 1 0.25 .692 Authoritative mothering 1 0.11 .628 Permissive mothering 1 4.23 Authoritarian fathering 1 0.15 .348 Authoritative fathering 1 3.81 .026 Permissive fathering 1 1.92 .084 Family conflict 1 1.73 .906 Extraversion 1 0.89 .173 Conscientiousness 1 6.39 .006 Neuroticism 1 0.47 .247 Peer autonomy support 1 0.59 .221 Peer control 1 0.54 Self-esteem 1 2.71 .051 Permissive Mothering x Peer Control 1 1.80 .090

PAGE 94

85 Table 3-11. Parameter Estimates of Regressi on Analysis for Continuous Variables Predicting Career Decision Self-Efficacy ( N = 283) Variable B SE p R2 Age 0.000.580.00 .997 .00 GPA -3.011.73-0.11 .958 .01 SAT 0.000.010.02 .405 .00 SES 0.070.070.06 .289 .00 Informational IS 0.350.140.15 .005 .02 Normative IS 0.390.150.16 .991 .01 Diffuse-avoidant IS -0.230.14-0.11 .049 .01 Authoritarian mothering 1.230.240.04 .692 .00 Authoritative mothering -0.070.22-0.02 .628 .00 Permissive mothering 1.000.480.34 .01 Authoritarian fathering -0.080.20-0.30 .348 .00 Authoritative fathering 0.380.190.13 .026 .01 Permissive fathering -0.260.18-0.10 .084 .01 Family conflict 0.260.200.08 .906 .00 Extraversion 0.100.110.06 .173 .00 Conscientiousness 0.380.150.18 .006 .02 Neuroticism -0.090.13-0.05 .247 .00 Peer autonomy support 0.040.050.05 .221 .00 Peer control 0.340.470.19 .00 Self-esteem 1.410.860.11 .051 .01 Permissive Mothering x Peer Control -0.040.02-0.41 .090 .00 ________________________________________________________________________ Note. R2 = .367 (Adjusted R2 = .262). Categorical variables gender, ethnicity, year in college, and family type were also included in the regression model.

PAGE 95

86 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to examine familial, individual, social-cognitive, and contextual predictors of car eer decision self-efficacy guided by ecological theory. Career decision self-efficacy has been identified as an important aspect of the career development process for several reasons. First, considerable change s and unpredictability in the labor market due to factors such as the globalization of the economy and fast evolving technology have turned career decision-making into an increasingly complex endeavor tied more to process and change than to the making of fina l decisions (Ferrari, 1998; Reece & Miller, 2006; Ryan et al., 1996; Vondracek, 2001; Whiston & Keller, 2004). Second, the transition to adulthood in Am erican society may involve a long period of exploration of self and context that c ould last a decade or more (Arnett, 2000, 2004). Consequently, the expectation that commitments to a career are made in the early 20s no longer fits the reality of what many if not most college students experience nowadays. According to Arnett (2000, 2004, 2006), college stude nts in affluent soci eties such as the United States undergo a period of emergent adulthood characterized by identity exploration, instability, self -focus, feelings of being in transition, and continuous examination of multiple possibi lities. In light of this long exploratory period, it seems more appropriate to focus on processes such as career decision self-efficacy rather than the content of career decisions or the ach ievement of career commitments, when investigating career development during the co llege years. Moreover, because a college education requires significant financial a nd time commitments, students who lack

PAGE 96

87 confidence in their career decision-making ab ilities and experience difficulties in the career choice process during the college year s are at higher risk of dropping out of college (Arnett, 2004; Reece & Miller, 2006). T hus, career decision self-efficacy as a key aspect of the career development proce ss in college students warrants extended investigation. Researchers and theorists who have high lighted the importance of studying career decision self-efficacy as a crucial aspect of the career development of college students have recently recommended expanding the study of career decision self-efficacy to include its contextual and social-cogn itive antecedents. In response to this recommendation, I investigated the devel opment of career decision self-efficacy by examining familial, individual, social-cognitive, and contextual predictors of career decision self-efficacy in college students. Iden tifying factors that facilitate or hinder the development of studentsÂ’ confidence in ma king career-related decisions may allow for appropriate intervention during the formative years and during the transition to college before problems in the career decision-m aking process arise (Bandura et al., 2001; Ferrari, 1998; Gianakos, 2001; Hackett, 1995 ; Vondracek et al., 1986; Whiston, 1996). In this chapter, I discuss the results of th e statistical analyses presented in chapter 3. Second, I provide conclusions based on these re sults. Then, I discuss the implications of the findings of this study. Fina lly, I indicate some of the limita tions of this investigation and propose some recommendations for research. Discussion of Findings In this ecological study I examined the re lationships of person, context, process, and time variables to career decision self -efficacy in college students. The person variables investigated were cognitive abil ity (SAT), academic achievement (GPA),

PAGE 97

88 personality (conscientiousness, extraversion, ne uroticism), and self-esteem. The context variables investigated were gender, ethnicity, socioeconom ic status, family conflict, and family type. Further, I included process va riables operating within the family context (perceived parenting styles), within the self (identity styles), and within peer relational contexts (peer autonomy support and peer cont rol in career decisions). The time variables examined were age and year in college. These person, process, context, and time variables were chosen in light of previous research and c onceptual associations between each variable and career decision self-efficacy. To guide this investigation, I posed the following questions: Question 1. Is the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy moderated by peer autonom y support, peer control, ethnicity, age, year in college, and gender? Question 2. If the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy is not moderated by peer autonomy support, peer control, ethnicity, age, year in college, or gender, then, is career decision self-efficacy predicted by each maternal and paternal perc eived parenting style? Question 3. Is career decision self-efficacy predicted by the contextual variables of family conflict, peer autonomy support, and peer control? Question 4. Is career decision self-efficacy predicted by the self-system (person) variables of achievement, abilit y, self-esteem, and personality (neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness)? Question 5. Is career decision self-efficacy predicted by the self-system (process) variables of identity st yles (informational, normative, diffuse-avoidant)? To answer Question 1, I proposed six m oderated effects hypotheses (Hypotheses 1 through 6). To answer Questions 2 through 5, I proposed six hypothese s of relationships (Hypotheses 7 through 12). Following is the discussion of findings for each of these hypotheses.

PAGE 98

89 Results of Tests of Hypotheses of Moderated Relationships I first tested the hypotheses that peer au tonomy support, peer control, ethnicity, age, year in college, and gender moderate the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy. Followi ng is a discussion of the results from tests of these hypotheses. Results of tests of Hypothesis 1 . Hypothesis 1 stated th at peer autonomy support moderates the relationship between each percei ved parenting style and career decision self-efficacy. Tests of this hypothesis indicate that the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self -efficacy is not moderated by peer autonomy support in career decisions. Several researchers of a dolescent development had f ound that the relationship between perceived parenting st yles and outcomes related to academic achievement tend to be moderated by the influence of peers (Steinberg & Darling, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1995). To determine whether peers also influence career decision self-efficacy, I hypothesized that the relationshi p between perceived parentin g styles and career decision self-efficacy in college students varies de pending on how much support of autonomy in career decision-making students receive from p eers. Specifically, my prediction was that positive relationships between the most supportiv e perceived parenting styles (perceived authoritative mothering and fathering) and ca reer decision self-efficacy are stronger when students also experience a high degree of peer support. In addition, I examined the possibility that peer suppor tive behaviors could offset th e negative effects of the less supportive perceived parenting styles (authorit arian and permissive) on career decision self-efficacy.

PAGE 99

90 The results of the test of Hypothesis 1 did not support the belief that the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy varies depending on how much peer support in care er decisions college students experience. Previous research that informed this hypothesis was primarily conducted with high school adolescents (Steinberg & Darling, 1994; Steinberg et. al., 1995). Age, and the fact that most high school students live with their parents, may account for this difference. It is possible that moderating effects of peer support on the relations hip between perceived parenting styles and career decision self -efficacy are found among high school students, but when students leave home, these moderate d relationships may attenuate and thus no longer be significantly evident in college popul ations. Replicating th is study with high school students may help clarify this possibility. Results of tests of Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 stated that peer control in career decisions moderates the relationship between each perceived parenti ng style and career decision self-efficacy. Tests of this hypothesis indicate that only the relationship between perceived permissive mothering and caree r decision self-efficacy is significantly moderated by peer controlling beha viors in career decision making. Previous research suggests that peer controlling behavior s, such as incompetence feedback and the criticizing of career choices, negatively rela te to career decision selfefficacy in college students beyond the positive or negative effects of parental behavior (Guay et al., 2003). Furthermore, as men tioned earlier, research ers of adolescent development had found that the relationship between perceived parenting styles and outcomes related to academic achievement tend to be moderated by peer influences (Steinberg & Darling, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1995). To examine this possibility, I

PAGE 100

91 hypothesized that the relationshi p between perceived parentin g styles and career decision self-efficacy varies depending on the degree of career-related peer control experienced by students. Specifically, I predic ted that positive relationships between the most supportive perceived parenting styles (p erceived authoritative mothering and fathering) and career decision self-efficacy is stronger when debil itating peer controlling behaviors in relation to career decisions are reported to be mi nimal. Also, I investigated if positive relationships between the most supportive perceived parenting styles (perceived authoritative mothering and fathering) and ca reer decision self-efficacy are offset by a high level of debilitative peer controlling be haviors experienced in relation to career decisions. I also examined the possibility th at negative relationships between the less supportive perceived parenting styles (authorit arian and permissive) and career decision self-efficacy become stronger when students experience high levels of peer controlling behaviors in career decisions. The results of this study show that the relationship between perceived permissive mothering and career decision self-efficacy is moderated by peer control in career decisions. Further examination of this fi nding reveals that pe rceived permissive mothering is positively related to career deci sion self-efficacy but only when peer control is reported to be low. Furthermore, I found that perceived maternal permissiveness is negatively related to career decision self-e fficacy when coupled with the experience of medium and high levels of peer controlli ng behaviors. These findings offer partial support of my predictions for perceived permi ssive parenting. In part icular, the prediction that a negative relationship between car eer decision self-efficacy and perceived

PAGE 101

92 permissive mothering becomes more str ongly negative for students who experience higher levels of peer co ntrolling behaviors is su pported in this research. However, when minimal detrimental peer control is reported in addition to a perception of having had a permissive mother, th is perceived mothering style, contrary to prediction, is not negatively related to caree r decision self-efficacy. Perceived permissive mothering is only negatively related to career decision self-efficacy when high levels of detrimental peer career-relat ed controlling behaviors are re ported. This finding suggests that permissive mothering should not be t hought of as necessarily detrimental to the development of career decision self-efficacy, but rather as possibly unfavorable in relation to career decision self-efficacy for youngsters needing to perceive greater maternal responsiveness to offset the negative influence of peer controlling behaviors in relation to career decisions. The results also show that peer control does not moderate the relationship between perceived authoritative mothering and car eer decision self-efficacy. Likewise, peer control does not moderate the relationship be tween perceived author itative fathering and career decision self-efficacy. Thus, this research does not support the prediction that peer controlling behaviors offset a positive rela tionship between perceived authoritative parenting and career decision self-efficacy. Also, this res earch does not support the prediction that peer contro l affects the relationship between perceived permissive fathering, perceived authoritarian fathering, and perceived authorit arian mothering and career decision-making self-efficacy. Finally, the results suggest that peer c ontrol in career decisions moderates the relationship between permissive mothering and career decision self -efficacy, but not the

PAGE 102

93 relationship between permissive fathering and career decision self-efficacy. This finding highlights the importance of studying the relati onship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy separa tely for mothers and fathers. Results of tests of Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 stated that ethnicity moderates the relationship between each perceived parenti ng style and career decision self-efficacy. Tests of this hypothesis reveal no significan t interactions between college studentsÂ’ ethnicity and perceived pa renting styles. Previous research shows that relationships between perceived parenting styles and academic achievement outcomes vary as a f unction of ethnicity (Park & Bauer, 1992; Steinberg & Darling, 1994; Steinb erg et al., 1992). In light of this finding, I examined the possibility that the relationship between perc eived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy varies depending on studentsÂ’ ethnicity. Specifica lly, on the basis of research showing the moderating role of et hnicity on the relations hip between parenting styles and academic achievement (Park & Bauer, 1992; Steinberg & Darling, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1992), I hypothesized that the relationship between perceived authoritative parenting and career decision self-efficacy is significantly positive for Caucasian students, but not necessarily signif icant, positive, or strong for students from other ethnic backgrounds. The results do not support the hypothesis th at the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career de cision self-efficacy is moderate d by ethnicity. It is possible that moderating effects of ethnicity on th e relationship between perceived parenting styles and academic outcomes such as academic achievement, as was shown in previous research, may not extend to other academics -related outcomes such as career decision

PAGE 103

94 self-efficacy. Also, the research on the moderati ng effects of ethnicity on the relationship between perceived parenting styles a nd academic achievement that guided the formulation of this hypothesis was conducte d primarily with high-school populations (Park & Bauer, 1992; Steinberg & Darling, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1992). The moderating effects of ethnicity on the relationship between perceived parenting styles and academic outcomes, and hypothetically career developmen t outcomes such as career decision selfefficacy, may be significant for adolescents living at home, but no longer significantly evident among students in the college context. Results of tests of Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 stated that age moderates the relationship between each perceived parenti ng style and career decision-self-efficacy. Tests of this hypothesis indicat e that none of the interactio ns between age and perceived parenting styles is significant. In their study of college studentsÂ’ devel opment, Strage and Bradt (1999) found that relationships between dimens ions of parenting styles (parental autonomy granting, demandingness and supportiveness) and stude ntsÂ’ confidence in their academic ability were attenuated in older students. Findings such as this one suggest that the relationships between perceived parenting styles and caree r decision self-efficacy may also weaken in strength as students get older. To explor e this possibility, I hypothesized that the relationship between perceive d parenting styles and caree r decision self-efficacy is stronger for younger than for older students. The results of this research, however, indicate that age doe s not moderate the relationship between percei ved parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy. Perhaps, this lack of significant results for this hypothesis may be connected to the

PAGE 104

95 concept of emergent adulthood (Arnett, 2000). According to Arnett (2000, 2004, 2006), in affluent societies such as American society, young people are allowed and even encouraged to take time during their 20s to explore and examine a wide range of possibilities carefully before making life co mmitments, including career commitments. Following this view, most students of college age are just beginning the self and life explorations of emergent adulthood; theref ore, the moderating effects of age on the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy may not yet be evident during the college years. Results of tests of Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 5 stated th at year in college moderates the relationship between each percei ved parenting style and career decision self-efficacy. Tests of this hypothesis indicate that none of the interactions between year in college and parenting styl es significantly predict car eer decision self-efficacy in college students. Several researchers have suggested that th e relationship of parental variables to academic and career decision-making outcomes may weaken as students advance through college (Guerra & Braungart-Rieker, 1999; Strage & Brandt, 1999; Whiston & Keller, 2004). To examine this possibility, I hypothesize d that the relationshi p between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-e fficacy in college students varies depending on studentsÂ’ year in college. Specifically, I hypothesized that the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision se lf-efficacy in college students is stronger for freshman and sophomore students and weaker for junior and seniors. However, the results of this study sh ow that the relationship between each perceived parenting style and career decision self-efficacy is not moderated by year in

PAGE 105

96 college. As mentioned earlier, possibly because college students in their early 20s are going through a similar developmental period of emergent adultho od, differences in year in college in terms of the relationship be tween perceived paren ting styles and career decision self-efficacy may not be apparent during these early years of emergent adulthood. Results of tests of Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 6 stated that gender moderates the relationship between each perceived parenti ng style and career decision self-efficacy. Tests of this hypothesis indi cate that none of the interactions between gender and perceived parenting styles signi ficantly predicts career deci sion self-efficacy in college students. In previous studies, researchers had f ound that the relationship between familial predictors and career decision variables tended to vary for male and female students (Betz & Klein, 1996; Taylor & Betz, 1983; Betz et al., 1996; Blustein et al., 1991; Ryan et al., 1996; Whiston, 1996; Whiston & Kelle r, 2004). For example, Whiston (1996) reported that some family factors such as organization and control in the family are significantly related to career indecision, but only among women. Blustein et al. likewise found that psychological separation and parent al attachment were related to women's tendency to foreclose, but this relationshi p was not found among men. Ryan et al. (1996) also found a stronger relationship between secure attachment to parents and career search self-efficacy among women. To explore the possibil ity that relationships examined in this study might vary by gender, I hypothesized that the relationship between each perceived parenting style and career decision self-effi cacy is moderated by gender. However, the

PAGE 106

97 tests of this hypothesis do not support the m oderating role of gender on the relationships between perceived parenting styles and career decisi on self-efficacy. Two limitations in this study may account fo r the lack of a gender difference in relationships among perceived parenting st yle and career decision self-efficacy in contrast to previous studies. First, the relatively small numb er of males in this study may have contributed to the lack of significant findings. Further and perhaps more important, male and female students who enroll in the t ypes of courses from which participants were recruited may be similar in terms of psyc hosocial characteristics and the patterns of development of career decision self-efficacy be liefs examined in this study. Recruiting students from more varied cour ses, particularly some from courses that are considered more related to stereotypically male inte rests, may have provided different results. Results of Tests of Hypothesis of Relationships When significant moderating effects (inter actions) were not found after testing the first six hypotheses, I tested hypotheses of relationships between all relevant variables in the model and career decision self-efficacy. Si x hypothesized relationships were tested. Following is a discussion of the results from these tests. Results of tests of Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 7 stated that perceived maternal and paternal parenting styles ar e significantly related to career decision self-efficacy. In particular this hypothesis specified that (a) perceived authoritative mothering and perceived authoritative fathering are positivel y related to career decision self-efficacy, and (b) perceived aut horitarian fathering, perceived au thoritarian mothering, perceived permissive fathering, and perceived permissive mothering are negativ ely related to career decision self-efficacy.

PAGE 107

98 Tests of Hypothesis 7 reveal that, of the perceived pare nting styles examined, only perceived authoritative fathering shows a si gnificant positive relationship with career decision self-efficacy. Perceived permissive fathering, perceived authoritative mothering, perceived authoritarian fathering, and percei ved authoritarian moth ering do not predict career decision self-efficacy in college student s. The relationship between career decision self-efficacy and perceived permissive mothering is not discussed in this section as this relationship was examined in the discussion of moderated relationships found in the tests of Hypothesis 2. Previous research on college student de velopment shows that perceptions of authoritative parenting experi enced during the formative y ears tend to have a positive relationship to academic and psychosocial outcomes even when students are no longer in daily contact with their parents (Adams et al., 2000; Strage & Brandt, 1999). Furthermore, several research ers of adolescent and college student development have shown that more positive outcomes tend to be associated with authoritative parenting perceptions than with permissive and author itarian parenting percep tions (Adams et al., 2000; Steinberg, 2001; Strage & Brandt, 1999). To examine wh ether these relationships occur with career decision self-efficacy, I hypothesized that perceived authoritative mothering and fathering relate positively to career decision self-efficacy, and perceived permissive and authoritarian pa renting relate negatively to career decision self-efficacy. The finding in this study of a positive rela tionship between authoritative fathering and career decision self-efficacy is consistent with the notion that authoritative parenting tends to be associated with positive outcom es even when students are no longer living at home. Moreover, finding that the hypot hesized relationship between mothersÂ’

PAGE 108

99 authoritativeness and career de cision self-efficacy was not sup ported in this investigation highlights the importance of di stinguishing between paternal and maternal influences on career development and caree r decision self-efficacy. Results of tests of Hypotheses 8. Hypothesis 8 stated that family conflict is negatively related to career decision self-effi cacy. Tests of this hypothesis indicate that the relationship between family conflict and career decision self-efficacy is not significant. Researchers who have examined the re lationship between family-of-origin variables and career development have c onsistently found that conflictive family relationships, particularly thos e expressed in the form of anger and hostility as measured by the FES, tend to be negatively related to career decision self-efficacy beliefs in college students (Blustein et al., 1991; Dodge, 2001; Hargrove et al ., 2002; Johnson et al., 1999; Lopez, 1989; Lucas, 1997; Penick & Jense n, 1992; Scott & Church, 2001; Whiston & Keller, 2004). In this study, however, these resu lts were not replicate d. It should be noted that previous researchers of the relationshi p between family conflict and career decision self-efficacy did not include in their studies the contextual and individual difference variables that were controlled in this resear ch. The lack of relationship between family conflict and career decision self -efficacy suggests that one or more of the other variables in the model not typically included in other research accounts for the variance typically attributed to family conflict in other studies , perhaps SES, which is significantly related to family conflict ( r = .12). This finding might also reflect the optimism of early adulthood. According to Arnett (2004, 2006) , emergent adulthood is a period of possibilities and hope, which optimally could be a time in which individuals start anew

PAGE 109

100 and rise above the limitations of chaotic fa mily situations of conflict. Not finding a relationship between family c onflict and career decision self-efficacy in this study may be indicative of the positive attitudes of college st udents during this developmental period. Results of tests of Hypothesis 9. Hypothesis 9 stated th at peer autonomy support is positively related to career decision self-e fficacy and peer contro l is negatively related to career decision self-efficacy. In this s ection I only discuss the results of the hypothesized relationship betw een peer autonomy support and career decision selfefficacy. I discussed the relationship between peer control and career decision selfefficacy in the section on Hypothesis 2. Te sts of the hypothesized relationship between peer support in career decisi ons and career decision self-e fficacy indicate that peer autonomy support in career decisions is not a si gnificant predictor of career decision selfefficacy. This finding was inconsistent with pr evious research, for example, Guay et al. (2003) reported a relationship between the supportive behavior of peers and career decision self-efficacy. However, in their study th ey did not include a ll the contextual and individual difference variables accounted for in this research, and this may explain the different results. Results of tests of Hypothesis 10. Hypothesis 10 stated th at self-esteem, ability, and achievement are positively related to career decision self-efficacy. Tests of this hypothesis reveal that the relationship betw een self-esteem and career decision selfefficacy is not significant. This finding was unexpected given that previous researchers studying career decision self-e fficacy had pointed to self-esteem as one of the most important predictors of career decision self -efficacy (Betz & Taylor , 2001; Creed et al., 2004; Gianakos, 1995, 1999, 2001). Again, the res earch studies in which significant

PAGE 110

101 positive relationships between self-esteem and career decision self-efficacy had been found did not include most of the contextual and individual difference variables that were controlled for in this study. Thus, self-esteem is not a si gnificant predic tor of career decision self-efficacy when all the variables incl uded in this research are accounted for. Tests of this hypothesis also indicate th at the hypothesized positive relationships between ability (SAT) and career decision self-efficacy, and achievement (GPA) and career decision self-efficacy, are not significan t. These findings were to be expected given that previous researchers of career de cision self-efficacy have generally not found a relationship between these va riables and career decision se lf-efficacy. These variables were included in this resear ch because previous results of these relationships were inconsistent across a few studies (Betz & Taylor, 2001). Also, these variables were included because conceptually it seems reasona ble to expect that students who are more successful academically will tend to have gr eater confidence in their ability to make career decisions. The findings in this study, however, s how that GPA and SAT scores do not predict career decision self-efficacy in coll ege students. It should be noted though that one of the limitations of this research is that students were recruite d from courses at the University of Florida, where students tend to have above average GPAs and SAT scores (Gonzalez, 1998). The unusually high GPAs a nd SAT scores of students in this study point to the need for caution in interpreti ng results of tests of hypotheses involving GPA and SAT scores. A wider range of students in terms of ability and achievement will be necessary in future studies to determine if the present findings regarding relationships between achievement, ability, and career decisi on self-efficacy might be due to restriction

PAGE 111

102 of range in the levels of achievement and abil ity in this sample of students. Furthermore, GPA and SAT scores in this study were self-re ported. In a meta-analysis of the accuracy of self-reports of grades and tests, Kuncel , Credé, and Thomas (2005) presented evidence that self-reported GPA and SAT scores may be of questionable validity, especially when provided by students with lower achievement and ability. Although th e participants in this study were college age and of higher abil ity, interpretations of results involving GPA and SAT scores are made with caution. Results of tests of Hypothesis 11. Hypothesis 11 stated th at extraversion and conscientiousness are positively related to car eer decision self-efficacy and neuroticism is negatively related to career decision self-efficacy . Tests of this hypothesis indicate that of the personality variables examined only cons cientiousness significantly predicts career decision self-efficacy in college students. Sp ecifically, as predicted, higher scores on conscientiousness are related to higher ca reer decision self-effi cacy. The relationship between extraversion and career decision self-e fficacy is positive but not significant. The relationship between career decision self-efficacy and neuroticism is negative but not significant. The finding of the positive relationship between conscientiousness and career decision self-efficacy is consistent with prev ious research examining this relationship (Reed et al., 2004; Tokar et al., 1998). Thus, the results of this study provide additional support for the belief that the discipline a nd persistence that char acterize conscientious individuals may lead them to engage system atically in career decision-making activities that help build career self-efficacy beliefs (R eed et al., 2004; Tokar et al., 1998). The lack of support for the relationship between extrav ersion and career deci sion self-efficacy and

PAGE 112

103 between neuroticism and career decision self -efficacy is inconsistent with previous research (Reed et al., 2004; Tokar et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2006). Se veral explanations for this finding are plausible. Contextual a nd individual difference variables that were controlled in this study were not included in other research studies that examined this relationship, and this may account for the inc onsistent results. Als o, differences may be due to the differences among the measures used to assess these two variables or to the differences among students in the samples. Furt her research is needed before it can be concluded that the failure to find relationshi ps between extraversion and neuroticism and career decision making is a valid result. Results of tests of Hypothesis 12. Hypothesis 12 stated th at identity styles are related to career decision self-efficacy. Speci fically, (a) an informational identity style is positively related to career decision self -efficacy and (b) both normative and diffuseavoidant identity styles are negatively related to career decision self-efficacy. Tests of this hypothesis reveal that identity styles pr edict career decision selfefficacy in college students. As predicted, an informational identity style is significantly positively related to career de cision self-efficacy. This findi ng supports the notion that individuals who approach career decisi on-making by exploring and evaluating information about the self and the career development context tend to gain enough experience in solving career choice problems su ch that these become building blocks to developing higher confidence in their career decision-making abilities. An alternative hypothesis, however, is that st udents who are confident in th eir abilities to make career decisions hold positive perceptions about th eir style of decision making. In addition, the relationship between a diffuse-avoidant iden tity style and career decision self-efficacy

PAGE 113

104 was significantly negative as predicted. This finding is consistent with the idea that students who approach identity relevant choices by avoiding exploration may not accumulate enough self-and career-search experien ces that could build into confidence in career decision-making abilities, but it is also co nsistent with the possibility that low selfefficacy in making career decisi ons leads to negative perceptions of oneÂ’s style in making career decisions. Further research is needed to determine the direction of the relationship. Finally, the results of this study indicate that a normative identity style and career decision self-efficacy are not negatively rela ted. Students who tend to approach identity relevant choices using a normative style have been described as e ngaging in restricted explorations of the self and the occupational contexts in favor of guiding their choices by othersÂ’ expectations (Berzonsky, 1999, 2003; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000, 2005; Berzonsky & Sullivan, 1992). Therefore, I hypothesized that th is restriction in selfand careerrelated decision-making experiences is relate d to lower confidence in career decisionmaking abilities. However, the results of th is study do not suppor t this hypothesis. Contrary to expectation, in this study th e direction of the re lationship between a normative identity style and career decision self-efficacy is positive. To clarify the direction of the relationship, in future rese arch, the hypothesis that a normative identity style and career decision self-efficacy are pos itively related could be investigated. A positive relationship between a normative identity style and career decision self-efficacy is possible considering that students who pref er a normative identity style may be in the foreclosure status described by Marcia (1966), and, as a resu lt, they may not experience low career decision self-efficacy because th ey are confident that following the expectations of significant othe rs is an appropriate approach to making career decisions.

PAGE 114

105 In addition, it is plausible that students who approach identit y and career relevant choices through a normative style may gain career d ecision-making experien ces vicariously and not necessarily through performance accomplis hments. According to BanduraÂ’s (1997) self-efficacy theory, the successful and unsuccessf ul experiences of others with whom the individual identifies may serve as observational learning experiences that become sources of self-efficacy beliefs. Students approachi ng career decision-making tasks normatively may seem to not be exploring and gaini ng personal experience s about the self by following other peopleÂ’s expectations. Howe ver, by observing what others do and the consequences of their actions, they may in f act be learning vicariously about themselves and using the experiences of ot hers with whom they identify as building blocks for the development of their own self-efficacy. This possibility may be examined in future research of relationships between identity styles and career decision self-efficacy. This study is one of the first to explore th e relationships between identity styles and career decision self-efficacy. The finding of significant relationships between identity styles and career decision self-efficacy suggests that th ese variables are important predictors of career decision self-efficacy that have been overlooked in previous research in this area. Conclusions Based on Findings In this study I examined familial, indi vidual, social-cognitive, and contextual predictors of career decision self-efficacy. Br onfenbrennerÂ’s ecological theory guided the design of this study, and person, process, c ontext, and time variab les representing the microsystem, mesosystem, macrosystem, a nd chronosystem of BronfenbrennerÂ’s (1979, 1995) ecological systems model were included in this research. The principal aim of this investigation was to examine family microsys tem process and context variables within a

PAGE 115

106 model of various relevant indi vidual and contextual predicto rs that in conjunction with familial predictors could better explain the development of career decision self-efficacy beliefs in college students. Within the family microsystem, I inve stigated the relationship between the proximal processes of perceived parenting st yles during the formative years and career decision self-efficacy in college students. It was my belief that BuriÂ’s (1991) parenting styles framework could provide a useful approach to examining the relationship between perceived parenting practices and career decision self-efficacy during the college years. To explore this possibility, I proposed pe rceived authoritarian mothering, perceived authoritarian fathering, perceived permissive mothering, perceived permissive fathering, perceived authoritative motheri ng, and perceived authoritative fathering as predictors of career decision self-efficacy. Another important goal of this study was to investigate the moderating role of the contextual variables of gender, ethnicity, ag e, year in college, peer autonomy support, and peer control on the relationship between each perceived parenti ng style and career decision self-efficacy. An examination of prev ious research of the relationship between these six contextual variables, perceived parenting styles, academic achievement, and career development outcomes led to the idea that the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy, the main interest in this study, might vary by gender, ethnicity, age, year in coll ege, peer autonomy suppor t, and peer control (Betz & Klein, 1996; Betz & Taylor, 1983; Betz et al., 1996; Blustein et al., 1991; Guerra & Braungart-Rieker, 1999; Park & Bauer, 1992; Ryan et al., 1996; Steinberg & Darling, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1992; Steinberg et al., 1995; Stra ge & Brandt, 1999; Whiston,

PAGE 116

107 1996; Whiston & Keller, 2004). To test these hy potheses, analysis of the data in this study began with the testing of six hypotheses of the interactions between each of these contextual variables and each perceived pa renting style on career decision self-efficacy. Then, six additional hypotheses were posed to test the relationships between career decision self-efficacy and other variables in the model not involved in the interactions that were found to be significant predictors of career decision self-efficacy when testing the first six hypotheses. The results of tests of the fi rst six hypotheses indicated that , of the variables tested for moderating effects, only peer control was a significant moderator of the relationship between perceived parenting st yles (specifically, perceived permissive mothering) and career decision self-efficacy. In tests of the six hypotheses of rela tionships (Hypotheses 7 through 12), the variables of perceived aut horitative fathering, conscientiousness, informational identity style, and diffuse-avoi dant identity style predict career decision self-efficacy. Following are conclusions a nd implications based on these findings. Conclusions about Moderated Relationships In the first research question posed in th is study I asked if the relationship between parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy is modera ted by peer autonomy support, peer control, ethnicity, age, year in colle ge, or gender. Of the variables that were hypothesized in this investig ation to moderate the rela tionship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self -efficacy, only peer control emerged as a significant moderating variable of one of the perceived pa renting styles and career decision self-efficacy relationship. Specificall y, peer control in career decision-making moderates the relationship between perceive d permissive mothering and career decision

PAGE 117

108 self-efficacy. Conclusions about the results of the tests of moderated relationships are presented in the following sections. Peer variables . It is notable that peer autonom y support in career decision-making is not a significant moderator of the relations hip between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy, whereas peer co ntrol in career decisions does have a significant moderating role in the relations hip between a perceived parenting style (perceived permissive mothering) and career decision self-efficacy. The differences in the role of peer autonomy support and peer cont rol in the relationship between perceived parenting style and career decision self-effi cacy suggest that the positive influence of peers (e.g., peer supportive behaviors in career decision-making) does not alter the relationship between perceptions of parental behaviors and ca reer decision self-efficacy because supportive peer behaviors are probabl y perceived as welcome but expected, and thus this support does not elicit shifts in behavior, perceptions , and beliefs. In contrast, adverse aspects of peer influence (e.g., p eersÂ’ controlling, competitive, or offensive behavior) are possibly experienced as unde sirable and thus could provoke a response from the individual and the parent that brings about shifts in indi vidual behavior and perceptions of parental behavi or that, in turn, relate posi tively or negatively to career decision self-efficacy beliefs. If this interp retation is accurate, more emphasis should be put on creating academic and social environments during the formative years and in college that discourage debilita ting behaviors such as laughin g at career choices, extreme competitiveness, and incompetence feedback among peers. Gender. Previous research indicated that re lationships between parental variables and career development variables tend to di ffer for male and female students (Betz &

PAGE 118

109 Klein, 1996; Betz & Taylor, 1983; Betz et al., 1996; Blustein et al ., 1991; Ryan et al., 1996; Whiston, 1996; Whiston & Keller, 2004). Ho wever, in this study the relationship between perceived parenting styles and car eer decision self-efficacy does not vary by gender. This finding may be due to the small number of male partic ipants in the study. The number of female participants far exceeded the number of male participants because the courses from which most of the particip ants were recruited (education and liberal arts) have a disproportionate number of female students. An alternative explanation is that male students who take courses in these areas of study may differ in terms of psychosocial characteristics a nd career development patterns from males taking courses that attract more traditionally masculine stude nts (for example, business, engineering, and science). The lack of gender differences on the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy may reflect these limitations, and thus the results of this study may primarily apply to students who enroll in courses offered in education and liberal arts. Future researchers ma y find moderating effects of gender on the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career de cision self-efficacy if these relationships are examined in students in cour ses that are more evenly balanced in the proportions of male and female students and th at reflect more ster eotypically masculine interests. Ethnicity. The moderating role of ethnicity in the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self -efficacy was predicted based on research indicating that the positive psychosocial and academic outcomes associated with perceived authoritative parenting, and the ne gative psychosocial and academic outcomes associated with perceived permissive and aut horitarian parenting, may be applicable only

PAGE 119

110 to Caucasian students. Research ers have shown, for example, that perceived authoritarian parenting styles among minority students tend to relate to positive psychosocial development and academic achievement (Park & Bauer, 1992; Steinberg & Darling, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1992). In the present study, however, ethnicity di d not emerge as a significant moderator of the relationship between parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy. This finding suggests the possibility that the moderating role of ethnicity in the relationship between perceived parenting styles a nd career decision self -efficacy that was hypothesized in this study based on research conducted with high school students may not apply at large, highly competitive uni versities with predominantly Caucasian students. Some researchers of acculturation of ethnically diverse college students have suggested that if differen ces in psychosocial development evident among ethnically diverse students in high school are not found in ethnically diverse students in college, it may be because of their tendency in colle ge settings to become more culturally integrated, acquiring values and goals that are less diverse fr om mainstream culture (e.g., Forbes, 1999 ) . Therefore, it is possible that the moderating role of ethnicity in the relationship between perceived parenting styles and career decision self-efficacy is not evident in this study due to a tendency of ethnically dive rse students to become more culturally integrated and acculturated to mainstream values and goals once in a higher education environment. Another possibility is that ethnically divers e students who go on to study in universities are more acculturate d to mainstream values. Another likely explanation for failing to find a relationship similar to that of research conducted with high schools students in relati on to achievement outcomes, however, is the small number

PAGE 120

111 of ethnically diverse st udents in the sample. Further exploration of these alternative possibilities may help clarify the unresolved issue of the role of ethnicity in the relationship between perceived parenting styles and importa nt developmental outcomes in college students. Age and year in college . The moderating role of age and year in college in the relationship between perceive d parenting styles and caree r decision self-efficacy was predicted based on previous rese arch indicating that age and y ear in college moderate the relationship between perceived parenting styles and academic outcomes, such as confidence in achievement ability (Strage & Bradt, 1999). In this study, however, age and year in college did not emerge as signifi cant moderators of the relationship between parenting styles and career decision self-e fficacy, suggesting that the finding in other studies that these variables moderate the re lationship between percei ved parenting styles and academic outcomes does not apply to career decision self-efficacy. However, differences in the sample or other variables included in the model might also account for the discrepancy in findings between this study and others. Further research is needed. Another possibility is that this finding regarding car eer decision self-efficacy may be related to the concept of emergent adulthood proposed by Arnett (2001, 2004, 2006). Following ArnettÂ’s views, older students, that is, junior and senior college students, might still perceive themselves as undergoing a process of exploring career decision-making possibilities. Arnett proposed th at significant differences in terms of the contextual and individual social-cognitive processes that influence career decisi on-making in college students may not be evident until the e nd of the emergent adulthood stage of development, which Arnett (2004) suggested doe s not usually happen until the late 20s.

PAGE 121

112 The finding in the present study showing that ag e and year in college do not moderate the relationship between parenting styles and caree r decision self-efficacy is consistent with ArnettÂ’s theoretical proposition. Conclusions about Relationships Following the tests of moderated relati onships, I conducted several tests of relationships between contextual and individu al difference variables included in this research and career decision self-efficacy. These tests revealed that perceived authoritative fathering, a conscien tious personality, an informa tional identity style, and a diffuse-avoidant identity style significantly predict career decision self-efficacy, after controlling for all other variab les in the model. In the following sections I present conclusions about these findings by focusing on each of the va riables signifi cantly related to career decision self-efficacy. Perceived authoritative fathering and perceived parenting styles. The tests of relationships between the perceived parent ing styles not moderated by peer control (perceived authoritative fathering, per ceived authoritative mothering, perceived permissive fathering, perceived authoritar ian fathering, and perceived authoritarian mothering) and career decision self-efficacy s howed that only the relationship between perceived authoritative fathering and career decision self-efficacy is significant. This finding is noteworthy for two reasons. First, this finding highlight s the importance of designing studies that differentiate between perceptions of paternal and maternal parenting styles when studying the relationshi p between perceived pa renting styles and career decision self-efficacy in college students. Second, this finding suggests the importance of fathers in the development of career-related beliefs. In addition, this finding suggests the importance of examining whether children who ar e raised without a

PAGE 122

113 father benefit from support from alternative paternal figures such as mentors or teachers in terms of their development of career decision self-efficacy. This possibility should be examined in experimental studies of the impact of interventio ns to enhance these childrenÂ’s career decision self-efficacy. Conscientiousness and personality. The finding of a significant positive relationship between conscientiousness and car eer decision self-efficacy is not surprising. Researchers of personality and career-relate d behavior have consistently pointed to conscientiousness as the most valid predicto r of vocational outcomes, including career decision self-efficacy (Lounsbury et al., 2005; Re ed et al., 2004; Tokar et al., 1998). The absence of significant relationships between extraversion and career decision self-efficacy, and neuroticism and career deci sion self-efficacy, was unexpected in light of previous research (e.g., Reed et al ., 2004; Tokar et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2006) indicating significant associations between thes e variables. In interpreting these findings, it is important to note that re searchers have defined extrav ersion as primarily reflecting positive affective tendencies (e.g., Reed et al., 2004; Tokar et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2006) and neuroticism as reflecting negative a ffect (e.g., Reed et al., 2004; Tokar et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2006). The findings in th is study suggest that these affective tendencies, positive or negative, may not dimi nish studentsÂ’ feelings of efficacy about their ability to engage in career decision act ivities. Given the importance of the goal of career decision-making to most students in higher education, they may develop confidence in their career explor ation activities regardless of their affective tendencies. Conscientiousness, which has been defined as more tied to goals and actionoriented behavior through disc ipline and persistence than to affective tendencies, is the

PAGE 123

114 only personality variable in this study si gnificantly related to career decision selfefficacy. This finding is encouraging b ecause, of the personality variables, conscientiousness is likely to be the most eas ily modified by experi ence. It may be, for example, more difficult to curb tendencies su ch as introversion or neuroticism than lack of conscientiousness. Thus, conscientiousness might be instilled in students during the formative years and while in college, despite initial personality inclinations. Hence, the knowledge that conscientiousness is positivel y related to career decision self-efficacy points to the desirability of investigating whether helping students during the formative years and throughout college develop habits of discipline and pers istence will benefit them academically and in their ability to make career choices in the future. Identity styles. Although previous research fi ndings of a relationship between identity styles and ego identity deve lopment (Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000; Berzonsky & Neimeyer, 1994; Grotevant, 1987; Schwartz, Mullis, Waterman, & Dunham, 2000), and research findings showing a relationship be tween ego identity development and career decision-making outcomes related to caree r decision self-efficacy, such as career indecision (Cohen et al., 1995; Vondracek et al., 1995), clearly pointed to the likelihood of a relationship between identity styles and career decision self-efficacy, this study is perhaps the first to examine the relationship between identity styles and career decision self-efficacy. Therefore, the fi ndings of significant relationshi ps between identity styles are important because theoretically derived relationships were empirically supported in this research, thus providing evidence that s upports both the tenets of the identity styles framework and suggests the possibility that they may serve as antecedents of career decision self-efficacy.

PAGE 124

115 Second, the finding that identity styles pr edict career decision self-efficacy is notable because this result ha s implications for an issue described by Arnett (2004) when presenting the concept of emergent adulthood as the developmental period experienced by college students. According to Arnett, it is important to identify during emergent adulthood those individuals w ho are likely to succeed in college and those who may flounder. Arnett proposed that the period of em ergent adulthood represents an age of exploration of possibilities, a period characterized by instabil ity of the self during which postponement of career decisions and commitme nts is expected. If many college students are going through the developmental period of emergent adulthood, it may be hard to distinguish between students who are on a pr oductive exploration pa th and others who are aimless. Because being uncommitted is acc eptable during this time in life, emergent adults who have no goals or plans, who may not be accumulating the experiences necessary for academic and career success, and who may be at risk of failing in their educational pursuits, may go unnoticed. As point ed out by Arnett, despite the flexibility of the American education system, which allo ws college students opportunities to explore possibilities, college students know that they are supposed to have a plan, a searching path. That is, they know the flexibility afforded to them is not a license to aimless action and are aware that they are preparing them selves for the adult workplace. However, despite this knowledge, some emergent adults attending college drift through this period (Arnett, 2004). Because firm commitments are not yet expected of them, they may not be noticed and helped in time before failing and wasting the valuable time afforded to them for identity development and for building future possibilities.

PAGE 125

116 In sum, some emergent adults may be on th e road to building career decision selfefficacy that will lead to c onfidence about being able to make career choices and being able to face changes during th eir work life, whereas others may not be building this belief. The findings of this study suggest th at an important difference between these students may be related to the approaches to identity relevant choices they are taking during this exploratory period of life. That is, many emergent adults during the college years may be uncommitted to a career choice but still actively seeking and building experiences that will lead to higher career decision self-efficacy and satisfactory academic and career commitments, whereas ot her students may be equally uncommitted, but are avoiding experiences that could beco me building blocks for the development of career decision self-efficacy. In this study it was found that an informati onal identity style is positively related to career decision self-efficacy, whereas a diffuse-avoidant identity style is negatively related to career decision self-efficacy. These findings suggest that students who approach career decisions by seeking out in formation and explori ng possibilities (an informational identity style) may be considered to be on the positive track expected of emergent adults in the process of ma king productive choices. Thus, it would be appropriate to encourage and support student s who are taking this approach to making identity, academic, and career-related choices . On the other hand, st udents who approach identity relevant choices by ta king a diffuse-avoidant approach may need to receive help so they can avoid low career decision self-efficacy, and possibly extended career indecision that could go beyond the years of emergent adulthood. Howe ver, an alternative interpretation of these rela tionships is that studentsÂ’ career decision self-efficacy

PAGE 126

117 influences their informational or diffuse-avoi dant identity style and, consequently, the focus of intervention should be on incr easing career decision self-efficacy. In conclusion, the findings in this study of a relationship between identity styles and career decision self-efficacy point to the relevance of looking at the construct of identity styles as a means to distingu ishing college students who are going through a period of emergent adulthood productively bu ilding the foundations to career decision self-efficacy and those who are not. It may be tempting to be unconcerned about college students who seem unfocused in their studies and aimless in their career decision-making process by attributing their beha vior to the exploration approp riate for emergent adults in transition and in search of an identity. Howe ver, a better understanding of the construct of identity styles as it relates to career deci sion self-efficacy gained through this study points to the need to make a distinction between emergent adults who may be uncommitted to a career but focused on a path of exploration of careers and those who are as uncommitted to a specific academic path as other emer gent adults, but who are not on a productive road to academic and career development, a nd are possibly at risk of dropping out of college (Arnett, 2004; Reece & Miller, 2006). Summary of Findings The results of this investigation indicate th at peer control is a significant moderator of the relationship between career decision se lf-efficacy and the parenting style variable of perceived permissive mother ing. Furthermore, the results of this study show that the variables of perceived author itative fathering, informational identity style, diffuseavoidant identity style, and conscientiousne ss predict career decision self-efficacy in college students. Although the change in R2 for these variables could be considered small (see Table 3-12), the findings of this invest igation are valuable because, unlike previous

PAGE 127

118 studies of predictors of career decision se lf-efficacy, significant re lationships are shown while controlling for the confoundi ng effects of multiple variab les. In addition, the small amount of variance accounted for in this study te lls us that we still know little about what is likely to influence career decision self-e fficacy. This finding emphasizes the need for more research on this topic. Implications of the Study The findings of this study have several im plications for the advancement of theory related to career decision se lf-efficacy. The primary theoreti cal purpose of this research was to examine familial, individual, social-cogni tive, and contextual predictors of career decision self-efficacy guided by Bronfenbre nnerÂ’s (1979, 1995) ecological theory of human development. The results of this i nvestigation point to the usefulness of an ecological theory framework for the study of pr edictors of career d ecision self-efficacy for four reasons. First, following Bronfebre nnerÂ’s (1995) theoretical guidelines, person, process, context, and time variables were chosen to be included in th is study in order to account for multiple predictors of career decision self-efficacy. The model tested explained a significant proportion of the variance in career decision self-efficacy (35.5%), which indicates the suitability a nd importance of including in a model of predictors of career decision self-efficacy vari ables representing person, process, context, and time variables, as suggested by Br onfenbrennerÂ’s ecological theory. Second, Bronfenbrenner (1995) suggested th at in studies of predictors of developmental outcomes, it is necessary to in clude in the model variables that represent proximal processes or relational mechanisms that explain the inte raction between the developing individual and th e developmental setting. Fo llowing this suggestion, the proximal process variables of perceived parentin g styles are central to this investigation

PAGE 128

119 of predictors of career de cision self-efficacy, with signi ficant relationships between perceived parenting styles and career decisi on self-efficacy revealed. Thus, these findings support BronfenbrennerÂ’s proposition of the importance of including variables representing proximal process or relati onal mechanisms in studies of human development. Third, according to Bronfenbrenner (1995), to study the relationship between developmental processes and contextual anteceden ts of these processes, it is necessary to examine not only relationships between pred ictor and outcome variables, but most important, to examine how variables in the ecological system interact to predict developmental outcomes. For this reason, six hypotheses of moderated relationships were tested in this study of predicto rs of career decision self-effi cacy. Significant results were obtained particularly for the interaction be tween variables from the peer and family microsystems. Specifically, the finding that peer control moderated the relationship between the perceived parenting style of pe rceived permissive mothering and career decision self-efficacy highlighted the aptne ss of following BronfenbrennerÂ’s proposal of the need to focus on examining interactions between variables for a better understanding of the relationship between th e developing individual and it s developmental context. Finally, in the most recent revision of ecological theory, Bronfenbrenner (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) pointed out the need to examine individual difference variables as precursors of developmental outcom es and not only as outcome variables, as most often done in developmental ps ychology research. In BronfenbrennerÂ’s (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) updated bioecological view, the individual is considered a system in which genetic, c ognitive, social-cognitive, affective, and

PAGE 129

120 motivational characteristics are key to the study of developmental processes. In this study, several of the self-system person (i.e ., conscientiousness) and process variables (i.e., informational and diffuse-avoidant id entity styles) includ ed, were significant predictors of career decision self-e fficacy. These findings demonstrate the appropriateness of including self-system va riables in studies of predictors of developmental processes. In sum, in this study, the inclusion of pers on, process, context, and time variables in a model of predictors of career decision self-efficacy th at accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in career deci sion self-efficacy, plus the finding of key significant relationships between the variab les studied, points to the suitability of applying BronfenbrennerÂ’s (1979; 1995) ecologi cal theory of human development to the study of career development in general, and career decision self-efficacy in particular. Another theoretical contribution of th is study is the highlighting of the appropriateness of using the theoretical framew ork of perceived paren ting styles to study the development of career decision self-effi cacy in college students. BuriÂ’s (1991) perceived parenting styles framework had not been previously used to examine familial predictors of career develo pment variables. Therefore, the finding of significant relationships between percei ved parenting styles and car eer decision self-efficacy represent a positive step towards showing the applicability of this theoretical framework in career development research. In addition, the findings in th is study may be interpreted as illustrating an important theoretical proposition of social cognitive theo ry that relates to the sources of efficacy information that build into self-efficacy beli efs. According to self-efficacy theory, self-

PAGE 130

121 efficacy is a malleable construct that may be altered by using four sources of efficacy information: enactive mastery experiences, vi carious learning, physiologic and affective states, and verbal persuasion and encouragem ent (Bandura, 1997; Betz & Hackett, 2006; Hackett & Byars, 1996). In this study, the signific ant relationships between the variables studied and career decision self-efficacy provi de indications of possible sources of efficacy information that according to self-effi cacy theory are related to the development of self-efficacy beliefs. For example, by findi ng that conscientiousness and informational identity style significantly predict career d ecision self-efficacy, the role of enactive experiences on the development of career decision self-efficacy may be implied, as it is possible that the reason why these variables are related to career deci sion self-efficacy is because individuals who are conscientious a nd information oriented tend to engage in productive and informative exploratory experien ces that build into career decision selfefficacy beliefs. Furthermore, finding that pe er control through negative verbal feedback (e.g., incompetence feedback or making fun of career choices) moderates the relationship between perceived parenting and career decisi on self-efficacy hints at the role of verbal persuasion in the development of career decision self-efficacy. In conclusion, this study shows that Bronf enbrennerÂ’s ecological theory of human development, BuriÂ’s perceived parenting styles framework, and social cognitive career theory could in combination be suitable theories for guiding the study of the career development process of college students. Spec ifically, in this st udy the three theories provide useful insights for identifying vari ables related to career decision self-efficacy. Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Future Research This study had several limitations that shoul d be addressed in fu ture research of career decision self-efficacy. First, the genera lizability of the study is limited because the

PAGE 131

122 sample consisted of volunteers from a single highly selective, large public university in Florida. Future research should examine the relationships among the variables studied in this research in other similar universities and in other types of colle ges and universities as well as non-collegiate populat ions. Young people who do not attend college might not experience a period of self-re flection, exploration, and postponement of commitments related to work similar to college students. This difference may have implications in relation to their career decision self-effi cacy in ways that are not well known to researchers interested in the development of career decision self-effi cacy beliefs because most studies of career decision self-efficacy ha ve been conducted with college students. A second limitation related to the sample in th is study is the high ratio of female to male students. Although the number of female and male students in the sample are representative of the proportion of female to male stude nts who take courses in education and liberal arts from which participants fo r this study were recrui ted, caution should be taken when interpreting and generalizing the results of this investigation to college students in courses where female students ar e less numerous and the course topics are viewed stereotypically as of less interest to women. A third limitation in the sample is the restriction in the rang e of ability to students with a bove average GPAs and SAT scores. Future research based on this study should be conducted with students who vary more widely in achievement and ability. Furthe rmore, information on GPA and SAT scores was obtained through self-reports, which have be en found to be a less reliable and valid source of achievement and ability information (Kuncel et al., 2005). In future research studies it would be desirable to obtain GPA and SAT scores from studentsÂ’ records. Moreover, the limitation of having used self-r eport measures for all the variables in the

PAGE 132

123 model should be noted. The self-reported, re trospective nature of the data may be associated with problems such as memory biases, shared method variance, and the tendency to give socially desirable responses (Berzons ky, 2004; Guay et al., 2003). In light of this limitation, it may be necessary in research of pr edictors of career decision self-efficacy to examine the extent to which parents' and peer behavior and students' perceptions are related. In future studies, the perceptions of students may be crosschecked with those of parents, peers, or ot her family members (Berzonsky, 2004; Guay et al., 2003), and when discrepancies occur, the f actors that account fo r the differences may be examined. Also, future researchers may c onduct observational stud ies of parental and peer behavior and analyze the relationship of parental and p eer behavior with studentsÂ’ career decision self-efficacy. Similarly, future researchers can also study discrepancies between self-reported career decision self-e fficacy and actual behavior. Comparative studies that examine the factors accounting for discrepancies between perceptions and behavior when these occur may be conducted. Another limitation of this investigation is the correlational nature of the study, which makes it impossible to draw causal co nclusions about the relationships among the variables examined. Thus, conclusions base d on this investigation are limited to statements of the strength and speculations about the direction of relationships. Future research studies may address this limita tion through the use of longitudinal and experimental designs. In part icular, experimental designs may be helpful because selfefficacy beliefs are malleable, and therefore in terventions in which the design allows for the assessment of changes in career decision self-efficacy would be most informative.

PAGE 133

124 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORMS Informed Consent (Form A) Please read this document carefully before you decide to participate in this study Dear Participant: My name is Alexandra Ribadeneira. I am a doctoral student in the Educational Psychology Department in the College of Educa tion at the University of Florida. I am conducting a study to investigat e the career decision-making pr ocess in college students. I would like you to particip ate in this research. If you take part in this st udy, your identity will be kept confidential. All data will be numerically coded with no identifiable reference to you. In this study you will be aske d to answer questions about family and peer attitudes, personal char acteristics, and career decisi on-making experiences, attitudes and beliefs. If you agree to participate you w ill be asked to complete ques tionnaires that you will take home and bring back to cla ss the next class period. Comp leting the questionnaires will take you approximately 40 minutes. You do not have to answer any question that you do not wish to answer. You will be free to disc ontinue your participation at any time without consequence. There are no anticipated ri sks to you. Students who part icipate will receive extra homework points for the course at the discreti on of your instructor (not to exceed 1% of your grade). If you agree, before you complete the questi onnaire, please write your name and sign the informed consent form that your instructor wi ll collect separately wh en you return your completed questionnaire. You will keep the s econd copy of the informed consent form. If you wish, you could discuss the research wi th me after the study is completed. If you have any questions concerning this research project, feel free to contact me or my supervisor, Dr. Patricia As hton, at (352) 392-0724 x226. Questions or concerns about research participantsÂ’ rights can be direct ed to the UFIRB office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250. Th e UFIRB telephone number is (352) 3920433. I have read the procedures described above . I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant signature: ____________________________ Date ________________ Name: _____________________________________ Please print carefully. This information will be used to give you the extra credit. Principal Investigator: Alexandra Ribadeneira ___________________ Date _________________________

PAGE 134

125 Informed Consent (Form B) Please read this document carefully before you decide to participate in this study Dear Participant: My name is Alexandra Ribadeneira. I am a doctoral student in the Educational Psychology Department in the College of Educa tion at the University of Florida. I am conducting a study to investigat e the career decision-making pr ocess in college students. I would like you to particip ate in this research. If you take part in this st udy, your identity will be kept confidential. All data will be numerically coded with no identifiable reference to you. In this study you will be aske d to answer questions about family and peer attitudes, personal char acteristics, and career decisi on-making experiences, attitudes and beliefs. If you agree to participate you w ill be asked to complete ques tionnaires that you will take home and bring back to cla ss the next class period. Comp leting the questionnaires will take you approximately 40 minutes. You do not have to answer any question that you do not wish to answer. You will be free to disc ontinue your participation at any time without consequence. There are no anticipated risks to you. Students in EDF 3110 and EDF 3210 who participate will receive credit for the course -required participation in a research study. If you agree, before you complete the questi onnaire, please write your name and sign the informed consent form that your instructor wi ll collect separately wh en you return your completed questionnaire. You will keep the s econd copy of the informed consent form. If you wish, you could discuss the research wi th me after the study is completed. If you have any questions concerning this research project, feel free to contact me or my supervisor, Dr. Patricia As hton, at (352) 392-0724 x 226. Questions or concerns about research participantsÂ’ rights can be direct ed to the UFIRB office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250. Th e UFIRB telephone number is (352) 3920433. I have read the procedures described above . I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant signature: ____________________________ Date ________________ Name: _____________________________________ Please print carefully. This information will be used to give you credit for the courserequired participation in a research study Principal Investigator: Alexandra Ribadeneira ___________________ Date _________________________

PAGE 135

126 Informed Consent (Form C) Please read this document carefully before you decide to participate in this study Dear Participant: My name is Alexandra Ribadeneira. I am a doctoral student in the Educational Psychology Department in the College of Educa tion at the University of Florida. I am conducting a study to investigat e the career decision-making pr ocess in college students. I would like you to particip ate in this research. If you take part in this st udy, your identity will be kept confidential. All data will be numerically coded with no identifiable reference to you. In this study you will be aske d to answer questions about family and peer attitudes, personal char acteristics, and career decisi on-making experiences, attitudes and beliefs. If you agree to participate you w ill be asked to complete ques tionnaires that you will take home and bring back to cla ss the next class period. Comp leting the questionnaires will take you approximately 40 minutes. You do not have to answer any question that you do not wish to answer. You will be free to disc ontinue your participation at any time without consequence. There are no anticipated risks to you. If you agree, before you complete the questionnaire, please write your name and si gn the informed consent form that the researcher will collect separately when you return your completed questionnaire. You will keep the second copy of the informed consent form. There will be no compensation for your partic ipation. This will only be an opportunity to help further knowledge of the career deci sion-making process in college students. If you wish, you could discuss the research wi th me after the study is completed. If you have any questions concerning this research project, feel free to contact me or my supervisor, Dr. Patricia As hton, at (352) 392-0724 x 226. Questions or concerns about research participantsÂ’ rights can be direct ed to the UFIRB office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250. Th e UFIRB telephone number is (352) 3920433. I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant signature: ____________________________ Date ________________ Principal Investigator: Alexandra Ribadeneira ___________________ Date _________________________

PAGE 136

127 Informed Consent (Form D) Please read this document carefully before you decide to participate in this study Dear Participant: My name is Alexandra Ribadeneira. I am a doctoral student in the Educational Psychology Department in the College of Educa tion at the University of Florida. I am conducting a study to investigat e the career decision-making pr ocess in college students. I would like you to particip ate in this research. If you take part in this st udy, your identity will be kept confidential. All data will be numerically coded with no identifiable reference to you. In this study you will be aske d to answer questions about family and peer attitudes, personal char acteristics, and career decisi on-making experiences, attitudes and beliefs. If you agree to participate you w ill be asked to complete ques tionnaires that you will take home and bring back to cla ss the next class period. Comp leting the questionnaires will take you approximately 40 minutes. You do not have to answer any question that you do not wish to answer. You will be free to disc ontinue your participation at any time without consequence. There are no anticipated risks to you. Students who participat e will receive cr edit in lieu of completing one of the cour se-required response papers. If you agree, before you complete the questi onnaire, please write your name and sign the informed consent form that your instructor wi ll collect separately wh en you return your completed questionnaire. You will keep the s econd copy of the informed consent form. If you wish, you could discuss the research wi th me after the study is completed. If you have any questions concerning this research project, feel free to contact me or my supervisor, Dr. Patricia As hton, at (352) 392-0724 x 226. Questions or concerns about research participantsÂ’ rights can be direct ed to the UFIRB office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250. Th e UFIRB telephone number is (352) 3920433. I have read the procedures described above . I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant signature: ____________________________ Date ________________ Name: _____________________________________ Please print carefully. This information will be used to give you credit for your participation. Principal Investigator: Alexandra Ribadeneira ___________________ Date _________________________

PAGE 137

128 APPENDIX B DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Please mark on your Scantron sheet the response that best represents you (For example, mark 0 on your Scantron sheet if you are FEMALE or mark 1 on your Scantron sheet if you are MALE). 1. Gender 0. Female 1. Male 2. Ethnicity 0. Caucasian 1. African-American 2. Hi spanic 3. Asian 4.Other 3. Class Standing 0. Freshman 1. Sophomore 2. Junior 3. Senior 4. Other 4. Please choose the response that best describes you 0. I knew what I would choose as my major when I started college. 1. I have considered several different ma jors, and I have now settled on a major that I like. 2. I have explored several different majors, but I am still undecided. 3. I have selected a major, but I plan on changing it. 5. Please choose the response that best describes your household as you were growing up 0. Both parents gainfully employed 1. Only male parent employed (male head of household) 2. Only female parent employed (female head of household) 6. Please mark the number that most closely describes your major 0. Education 1. Physical Education and Recreation 2. Health-related professions (e.g., nursing, audiology) 3. Psychology and other social sciences--(e .g., political science, anthropology, sociology) 4. Journalism and Telecommunications 5. Business 6. Liberal arts (e.g., Engl ish, history, languages) 7. Math and Science 8. Hospitality, Tourism, Event Planning 9. Other

PAGE 138

129 7. While growing up, were you raised in a: 0. dual parent household without step -parents (mother and father) 1. dual parent household with step-parent (mother and step-father) 2. dual parent household with step-p arent (father and step-mother) 3. single mother (divorced) household 4. single father (divorced) household 5. single mother (never married) household 6. single father (never married) household 7. single mother (father deceased) household 8. single father (mother deceased) household 9. Other 8. Please choose the option that best describes your MOTHERÂ’S level of education 0. less than seventh grade 1. junior high school (9th grade) 2. partial high school (10th or 11th grade) 3. high school graduate (whether private, pr eparatory, parochial, trade, or public school) 4. partial college (at least one year) or specialized training 5. graduate of a 4-year college or university 6. graduate professional tr aining (graduate degree) 9. Please choose the option that best describes your FATHERÂ’S level of education 0. less than seventh grade 1. junior high school (9th grade) 2. partial high school (10th or 11th grade) 3. high school graduate (whether private, pr eparatory, parochial, trade, or public school) 4. partial college (at least one year) or specialized training 5. graduate of a 4-year college or university 6. graduate professional tr aining (graduate degree) FOR THE FOLLWING QUESTIONS PLEASE WRITE YOUR ANSWERS IN THE BLANKS 1. What is your age: Years ________ Months ___________ 2. What was your MOTHERÂ’S OCCUPATION as you were growing up? _______________________________________________ 3. What is your motherÂ’s present occupation? ________________________________________________ 4. What was your FATHERÂ’S OCCUPATION as you were growing up? ________________________________________________

PAGE 139

130 5. What is your fatherÂ’s present occupation? _________________________________________________________ 6. What is your SAT quantitative (math) score? ____________________ 7. What is your SAT verbal score? _______________________________ 8. What is your ACT math score? (if applicable) ____________________ 9. What is your ACT verbal score? (if applicable) ___________________ 10. What is your GPA? _________________________________________

PAGE 140

131 REFERENCES Abraham, K. G. (1986). Ego-identity diffe rences among Anglo-American and MexicanAmerican adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 9 , 151-166. Adams, G., Ryan, B., & Keating, L. (2000). Family relationships, academic environments, and psychosocial developm ent during the univer sity experience: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15 , 99-122. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A th eory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55 , 469-480. Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties . New York: Oxford University Press. Arnett, J. J. (2006). Emerging adulthood: U nderstanding the new way of coming of age. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21 century (pp. 317). Washington, DC: Amer ican Psychological Association. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and acti on: A social cognitive theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self -efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: Freeman. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children's as pirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72 , 187-206. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4 , 1-103. Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R. M. Lerner, & A. C. Petersen (Eds.), The encyclopedia on adolescence (pp. 746758). New York: Garland. Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998) . Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 , 729-750.

PAGE 141

132 Berndt, T. J. (1996). Transitions in friendship and friends' influence. In J. A. Graber, J. Brooks-Gunn, & A. C. Peterson (Eds.), Transitions through adolescence: Interpersonal domains and context (pp. 57-84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Berzonsky, M. (1989). Identity style: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4 , 267-281. Berzonsky, M. (1992a). Identity style and coping strategies. Journal of Personality, 60 , 771-778. Berzonsky, M. (1992b). Identity Style Inventory (ISI3). Revised version. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Cortland. Berzonsky, M. (1997). Reliability data for the Identity Style Inventory (3rd rev., ISI3) . Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Cortland. Berzonsky, M. (1999). Identity styles and hypothesis-testing strategies . Journal of Social Psychology, 139 , 784-789. Berzonsky, M. (2003). Identity style and well-being: Does commitment matter? Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research , 3 , 131-142. Berzonsky, M. (2004). Identity style, parent al authority, and identity commitment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33 , 213-220. Berzonsky, M., & Adams, G. (1999). Reevaluati ng the identity status paradigm: Still useful after 35 years. Developmental Review, 19 , 557-590. Berzonsky, M., & Ferrari, J. (1996). Identity orientation and decisional strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 20 , 597-606. Berzonsky, M., & Kuk, L. (2000). Identity stat us, identity processing style, and the transition to university. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15 , 81-98. Berzonsky, M., & Kuk, L. (2005). Identity st yle, psychosocial maturity, and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 39 , 235-247. Berzonsky, M., & Neimeyer, G. (1994). Ego identity status and identity processing orientation: The modera ting role of commitment . Journal of Research in Personality, 28 , 425-435. Berzonsky, M., Nurmi, J., Kinney, A., & Tammi, K. (1999). Identity processing style and cognitive attributional strategies: Sim ilarities and differences across different contexts. European Journal of Personality, 13 , 105-120. Berzonsky, M., & Sullivan, C. (1992). Social-cogn itive aspects of identity style: Need for cognition, experiential ope nness, and introspection. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 140-155.

PAGE 142

133 Betz, N., & Hackett, G. (2006). Career se lf-efficacy theory: Back to the future. Journal of Career Assessment, 1 , 3-11. Betz, N., Hammond, M., & Multon, K. (2005). Re liability and validity of five-level response continua for the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 13 , 131-149. Betz, N., & Klein, K. (1996). Relationships among measures of career self-efficacy, generalized self-efficacy, and global self-esteem. Journal of Career Assessment, 4 , 285-298. Betz, N., Klein, K., & Taylor, K. (1996). Ev aluation of a short form of the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4 , 47-57. Betz, N., & Taylor, K. (2001). Manual for the Career Deci sion Self-Efficacy Scale and CDMSE-short form . Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Betz, N., & Voyten, K. (1997). Efficacy a nd outcome expectation influence career exploration and decidedness. Career Development Quarterly, 46 , 179-189. Bloom, B. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning. Family Process , 24, 225-239. Bloom, B., & Naar, S. (1994). Self-report meas ures of family functi oning: Extensions of a factorial analysis. Family Process, 33 , 203-216. Blustein, D., Prezioso, M., & Palladino, D. P. (1995). Attachment theory and career development: Current status and future directions. The Counseling Psychologist, 23 , 416-432. Blustein, D., Walbridge, M., Friedlander, M ., & Palladino, D. P. (1991). Contributions of psychological attachment to th e career development process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38 , 39-50. Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C., Suwalsky, J, & Ha ynes, O. M. (2003). Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development: The Hollo ingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status and the Socioeconomi c Index of Occupations. In M. H. Bornstein, & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, par enting, and child development (pp. 2982). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bosma, H., & Kunnen, E. S. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity development: A review and synthesis. Developmental Review, 21 , 39-66. Boyd, V., Hunt, P., Kandell, J., & Lucas, M. (2003). Relationship between identity processing style and academic su ccess in undergraduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 44 , 155-167.

PAGE 143

134 Brachter, W. (1982). The influence of the fa mily on career selection: A family systems perspective. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 61 , 87-91. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments in nature and design . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmenta l ecology through space and time: A future perspective . In P. Moen & G. Elder Jr. (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 619-647 ) . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. (5th ed., pp. 993-1028). New York: Wiley. Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire . Journal of Personality Assessment, 57 , 110-119. Chung, B. (2002). Career decision-making se lf-efficacy and career commitment: Gender and ethnic differences among college students. Journal of Career Development, 28 , 277-284. Cohen, C., Chartrand, J., & Jowdy, D. (1995). Relationship between career indecision subtypes and ego identity development. Journal of Counse ling Psychology, 42 , 440-447. Cook, E., Heppner, M., & O'Brien, K. (2002a). Career development of women of color and White women: Assumptions, conceptu alization, and interventions from an ecological perspective. Career Development Quarterly, 50 , 291-305. Cook, E., Heppner, M., & O' Brien, K. (2002b). Feminism and women's career development: An ecological perspective. In S. G. Niles (Ed.), Adult career development: Concepts, issues, and practices (pp.168-189). Columbus, OH: National Career Deve lopment Association. Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). NEO-PI-R Professional Manual. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NE O Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Creed, P., Patton, W., & Bartrum, W. (2004). Internal and external barriers, cognitive style, and the career development variables of focus and indecision . Journal of Career Development, 30 , 277-294. Crites, J. O. (1978). Career Maturity Inventory . Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw Hill. Dodge, T. (2001). An investigation of the rela tionship between the fa mily of origin and selected career development outcomes. (Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana Tech University, 2001). Dissertation Abstra cts International , 62, 1140.

PAGE 144

135 Dollinger, S. (1995). Identity styles and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 29 , 475-479. Ensminger, M., Forrest, C., Riley, A., Kang, M., Green, B., Starfield, B., & Ryan, S. (2000). The validity of measures of so cioeconomic status of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research , 15, 392-419. Ensminger, M. & Fothergill, K. (2003). A d ecade of measuring SES: What it tells us and where to go from here. In M. H. Bornstein, & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp.13-27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis . New York: Norton. Felsman, D., & Blustein, D. (1999). The role of peer relatedness in late adolescent career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54 , 279-295. Ferrari, T. M. (1998). Career preparation se lf-efficacy of elementary-age children: An examination of person, social context, a nd career preparation learning experience variables (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 , 5597. Ferry, T., Fouad, N., & Smith, P. (2000). The role of family context in a social cognitive model for career-related choice behavior : A math and science perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57 , 348-364. Forbes, S. A. (2000). Acculturation, family characteristics, gender, and identity development of African American, Caucas ian, and Hispanic adolescents (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 4316 . Gianakos, I. (1995). The relation of sex role identity to career decision-making selfefficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46 , 131-143. Gianakos, I. (1999). Patterns of career choi ce and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54 , 244-258. Gianakos, I. (2001). Predictors of career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 9 , 101-114. Gloria, A., & Hird, J. (1999). Influences of ethnic and nonethnic variables on the career decision-making self-efficacy of college students. Career Development Quarterly, 48 ,157-174. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of ma rkers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4 , 26-42.

PAGE 145

136 Gonzalez, A. (1998). Undergraduate students’ go al orientations and their relationship to parenting styles (Docto ral dissertation, University of Florida, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 , 3347. Gottfried, A. W. (1985). Measures of soci oeconomic status in child development research: Data and recommendations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31 , 85-92. Grotevant, H. D. (1987). Toward a pr ocess model of identity formation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2 , 203-222. Grotevant, H. D. (1992). Assigned and c hosen identity components: A process perspective on their integrati on. In G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullota, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Adolescent identity formation (pp. 73-90). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Guay, F., Rattelle, C., Senécal, C., Larose, S ., & Deschenes, A. (2006). Distinguishing developmental from chronic career ind ecision: Self-efficacy, autonomy, and social support. Journal of Career Assessment, 2 , 235-251. Guay, F., Senécal, C., Gauthier, L., & Fernet , C. (2003). Predicting career indecision: A self-determination th eory perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50 , 165177. Guerra, A., & Braungart-Rieker, J. (1999). Predicting career indecision in college students: The roles of identity forma tion and parental re lationship factors. Career Development Quarterly, 47 , 255-266. Hackett, G. (1995). Self-efficacy in career c hoice and development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 232-258). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hackett, G., & Byars, A. (1996). Social cognitive career theo ry and the career development of African American women. Career Development Quarterly, 44 , 322-341. Hargrove, B., Creagh, M., & Burgess, B. (2002). Family interaction patterns as predictors of vocational identity and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61 , 185-201. Heise, D.R. (1969). Separating reliability and stability in te st-retest correlation. American Sociological Review, 34 , 93-101. Hickman, G., Bartholomae, S., & McKenry, P. (2000). Influence of parenting styles on the adjustment and academic achievement of traditional college freshmen. Journal of College Student Development, 41 , 41-54. Hollingshead, A.B. (1975). Four factor index of social status . Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, Department of Sociology, New Haven, CT.

PAGE 146

137 John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The “Big Five” Inventory— Versions 4a and 54 (Tech. Report ). Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Personality and Social Research. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). Th e Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp.102-138). New York: Guilford Press. Johnson, P., Buboltz, W., & Nichols, C. (1999). Parental divorce, family functioning, and vocational identity of college students. Journal of Career Development, 26 , 137146. Klein, H., O’Bryant, K., & Hopki ns, H. (1996). Recalled parental authority style and selfperception in college men and women. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 157 , 5-17. Kracke, B. (1997). Parental behavior s and adolescents' career exploration . Career Development Quarterly, 45 , 341-350. Kuncel, N., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. (2005) . The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A me ta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75 , 63-82. Lee, H., & Hughey, K. F. (2001). The rela tionship of psychological separation and parental attachment to the career maturity of college freshmen from intact families. Journal of Career Development, 27 , 279-293. Lent, R., Brown, S., & Hackett, G. (1994). To ward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest , choice, and performance . Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45 , 79-122. Lindley, L. (2006). The paradox of self-effi cacy: Research with diverse populations. Journal of Career Assessment, 1 , 143-160. Lopez, F. (1989). Current family dynamics, trait anxiety, and academic adjustment: Test of a family-based model of vocational identity . Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35 , 76-87. Lopez, F., & Andrews, S. (1987). Career in decision: A family systems perspective. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65 , 304-307. Lounsbury, J., Hutchens, T., & Loveland, J. (2005). An investigation of Big Five Personality traits and career decidedn ess among early and middle adolescents. Journal of Career Assessment, 1 , 25-39. Lucas, M. (1997). Identity development, career development, and psychological separation from parents: Similarities and differences between men and women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44 , 123-132.

PAGE 147

138 Luzzo, D. A. (1993). Reliability and validity te sting of the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 26 , 137-142. Luzzo, D. A. (1996). A psychometric evaluati on of the Career Decision-Making SelfEfficacy Scale. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74 , 276-279. Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3 , 551-558. Markstrom-Adams, C., & Adams, G. R. (1995). Gender, ethnic group, and grade differences in psychosocial func tioning during middle adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24 , 397-417. Mau, W. (2000). Cultural differences in career decision-making styl es and self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57 , 365-378. McCrae, R., & John, O. (1992). An introduc tion to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60 , 175-215. Merrick, E. (1995). Adolescent childbearing as career choice: Perspective from an ecological context. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73 , 288-295. Moos, R., & Moos, B. (1994). Family Environment Scale Manual (3rd ed.) . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Mueller, C. W., & Parcel, T. L. (1981). Meas ures of socioeconomic status: Alternatives and recommendations. Child Development, 52 , 13-30. Nurmi, J., Berzonsky, M., Tammi, K., & Kinney, A. (1997). Identity processing orientation, cognitive and behavi oral strategies and well-being. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21 , 555-570. O'Brien, K., Friedman, S., Tipton, L., & Li nn, S. (2000). Attachment, separation, and women's vocational development: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47 , 301-315. Osipow, S. H. (1987). Manual for the Career Decision Scale . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Osipow, S. H. Carney, C. G., & Barak, A. (1976). A scale of educational vocational undecidedness: A typol ogical approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 9, 233243. Park, H., & Bauer, S. (2002). Parenting prac tices, ethnicity, socio economic status, and academic achievement in adolescents. School Psychology International, 23 , 386396.

PAGE 148

139 Pelletier, L. G. (1992). Construction and validation of the perceptions of the Interpersonal Style Scale . Unpublished manuscript, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Penick N., & Jensen, D. (1992). Family func tioning and adolescent ca reer development. Career Development Quarterly, 40 , 208-222. Peterson, S. L. (1993). Career decision-mak ing self-efficacy and social and academic integration of underprepared college st udents: Variations based on background characteristics. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 18 , 77-115. Reece, R., & Miller, C. D. (2006). Effects of a university career development course career decision-self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 2 , 252-266. Reed, M. B., Bruch, M., & Haase, R. (2004). Fi ve-factor model of personality and career exploration. Journal of Career Assessment, 12 , 223-238. Renn, K. A., & Arnold, K. D. (2003). Reconceptu alizing research on co llege student peer culture. Journal of Higher Education, 74 , 261-291. Robbins, S. B. (1985). Validity estimates for the Career Decision-Ma king Self-Efficacy Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,18 , 64-71. Robins, R., Hendin, H., & Trzesniewski, K. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item meas ure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 , 151-161. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image . Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Ryan, N., Solberg, S., & Brown, S. (1996). Fa mily dysfunction, parental attachment, and career search self-efficacy among community college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43 , 84-89. Schulenberg, J., Vondracek, F., & Crouter, A. (1984). The influence of the family on vocational development. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46 , 129-143. Schwartz, S. (2001). The evolution of Eriksoni an and Neo-Eriksonian identity theory and research: A review and integration. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 1 , 7-58. Schwartz, S., Mullis, R., Waterman, A., & Dunham, R. (2000). Ego identity status, identity style, and personal expressivene ss: An empirical investigation of three convergent constructs. Journal of Adolescent Research,15 , 504-521. Scott, D., & Church, T. (2001). Separation/at tachment theory and career decidedness and commitment: Effects of parental divorce. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58 , 328347.

PAGE 149

140 Solberg, V., Good, G., Fischer, A., Brown, S., & Nord, D. (1995). Career decisionmaking and career search activities: Relativ e effects of career search self-efficacy and human agency. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42 , 448-455. Sontag, J. C. (1996). Toward a comprehens ive theoretical framework for disability research: Bronfenbrenner revisited. Journal of Special Education, 30 , 319-344. Spencer , M., & Dornbusch, S. (1990). Challe nges in studying minority youth. In S. Feldman & G. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 123146). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relati onship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescen t school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17 , 125146. Splete, H., & Freeman-George, A. (1985). Fami ly influences on the career development of young adults. Journal of Career Development, 12 , 55-64. Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Pare nt-adolescent relations hips in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11 , 1-19. Steinberg, L., & Darling, N. (1994). The br oader context of social influence in adolescence. In R. Silberaisen & E. Todt (Eds.), Adolescence in context: The interplay of family, school, p eers, and work in adjustment (pp. 25-45). New York: Springer-Verlag. Steinberg, L., Darling, N., & Fletcher, A. ( 1995). Authoritative pare nting and adolescent adjustment: An ecological journey. In P. Moen, G. Elder Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 423-466). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S., & Brown, B. (1992). Ethnic differen ces in adolescent achievement. American Psychologist, 47 , 723-729. Strage, A., & Brandt, T. (1999). Authoritativ e parenting and college studentsÂ’ academic adjustment and success. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 , 146-156. Taylor, K., & Betz, N. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22 , 63-81. Taylor K., & Popma, J. (1990). An examin ation of the relationships among career decision-making self-efficacy, career salien ce, locus of control, and vocational indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37 , 17-31. Tokar, D., Fischer, A., & Subich, L. M. (1998). Personality and vocational behavior: A selective review of the literature, 1993-1997. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53 , 115-153.

PAGE 150

141 Tokar, D., Withrow, J., Hall, R., & Mo radi, B. (2003). Psychological separation, attachment security, vocati onal self-concept crystalliza tion, and career indecision: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50 , 3-19. Vleioras, G., & Bosma, H. A. (2005). Are id entity styles important for psychological well-being? Journal of Adolescence, 28 , 397-409. Vondracek, F. W. (2001). The developmen tal perspective in vocational psychology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59 , 252-261. Vondracek, F. W., Lerner, R ., & Schulenberg, J. (1986). Career development: A life-span developmental approach . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Vondracek, F. W., Schulenberg, J., Skorikov, V., Gillespie, L., & Walheim, C. (1995). The relationship of identity status to career indecision in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 18 , 17-29. Wang, N., Jome, L., Haase, R., & Bruch, M. (2006). The role of personality and career decision-making self-efficacy in the career c hoice commitment of college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 14 , 312-332. Weiss, L., & Schwarz, C. (1996). The rela tionship between paren ting types and older adolescentsÂ’ personality, academic achievement, adjustment, and substance use. Child Development, 67 , 2101-2114. Whiston, S. (1996). The relationship among family interaction patterns and career indecision and career deci sion-making self-efficacy. Journal of Career Development, 23 , 137-149. Whiston, S., & Keller, B. (2004). The influen ces of the family of origin on career development: A review and analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 32 , 493-568. Wintre, M. G., & Sugar, L. (2000). Relations hips with parents, personality, and the university transition. Journal of College Student Development, 41 , 202-214. Wintre, M. G., & Yaffe, M. (2000). First-year students' adjustment to university life as a function of relationships with parents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15 , 9-37. Wolfe, J., & Betz, N. (2004). The relationship of attachment variab les to career decisionmaking self-efficacy and fear of commitment. Career Development Quarterly , 52, 363-369. Young, R. (1983). Career development of a dolescents: An ecologi cal perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12 , 401-417.

PAGE 151

142 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Alexandra M. Ribadeneira was born in Qu ito, a beautiful Andean city in Ecuador, South America. She received a BA degree in anthropology from Fort Lewis College in Colorado in 1989. She received an MA degr ee in applied sociology from Indiana University of Pennsylvania in 1991. In 1994 she received an MA in education from the University of Alabama. For five years she held the position of Guidance Counselor at Colegio Americano de Quito, a private bilingual school in Ecuador. She was accepted to the doctoral program in educational psychology at the University of Fl orida in the Fall of 2000, and attained doctoral candidacy in Se ptember of 2003. While pursuing her doctoral studies, she has taught various courses in th e Educational Psychology Department at UF. Upon her graduation she will move to Sant a Fe, New Mexico, where she plans to continue her research on identity and car eer development. Taking advantage of her Hispanic heritage and native Spanish speak ing skills, she wishes to pursue research, teaching, and academic advising with students in the Southwest.